Picture Stealing

[Ste1976]

Having only been into Photography properly ie with DSLR for a few months now I keep noticing people going on about Picture Stealing.

So im wondering why do people nick other people pics for? Is it to pass them off as something they done or to sell them ect.

Now i have a few decent pics meself and I've actually sold a couple to freinds, which are uploaded to a flickr that are not watermarked, So should i watermark them and if so how do you go about doing it.

 

[W.Smith]

If you think it's worth the trouble then by all means go get one of those watermarking appies or plug-ins and start disfiguring all your beautiful photos.

But to avoid that you could consider embedding steganographic copyright messages – invisibly – while mentioning that fact in a captioned copyright message outside of the image.

Versiontracker –> steganography.

Wikipedia –> Steganography

But is it worth the trouble?
I doubt it.

 

[awp]

I have a huge problem of my pictures being stolen and used without permission or payment. Watermarking has almost stopped it. Some people seem to think it's ok to just use any picture they find without payment.

 

[DiddyDave]

I have a huge problem of my pictures being stolen and used without permission or payment. Watermarking has almost stopped it. Some people seem to think it's ok to just use any picture they find without payment.

'huge problem' how do you know? And what are they doing with them?

I think the huge copyright logo and/or web name is so distracting I don't bother to look at the images properly anyway. My site's are all 600px max thinking so are of little use for printing, if someone wants to 'borrow' them for some other purpose 'so what' is my view

If such as Joe Cornish don't bother with distracting watermarks why should I?

 

[petemc]

If such as Joe Cornish don't bother with distracting watermarks why should I?

Yup exactly. I watermark but I also understand how people are on the internet and that bigger photographers than me are able to get by.

 

[awp]

People use them on websites - maybe other things too but they're harder to catch. I have tracking on websites and check where the hits are coming from - and also check Google' images from time to time - theives often don't change the filename making it easy to trace them. I earn a lot from stock images and it is very annoying that people keep stealing images and not paying for them. Some quite high profile people too - you'd be surprised. It is a hassle I'd rather not have. I don't like the watermarks either but they have reduced theft of my inages by 90% or so.

Interesting to note Diddy Dave that you supply people with a DVD of pictures 'accompanied by music of their choice'. How do you do that legally? Copying music CDs and distributing it like this is also illegal.

 

[DiddyDave]

Interesting to note Diddy Dave that you supply people with a DVD of pictures 'accompanied by music of their choice'. How do you do that legally? Copying music CDs and distributing it like this is also illegal.

Interesting point of course, for my take on it I'd have to refer to a few of my clients who are solicitors and also police personnel whose opinion I have asked - the view given to me is, if the client already has the music in their cd collection and I'm not selling them the music as part of the package, merely adding their own music to their photos for them for free it's no different to me providing them with a music-less dvd and them playing their cd as background


So back to your point - those stealing images from you are loading them onto their websites? Presumably just as a means of making their sites prettier? Which is of course taking the p**s, I mistakenly thought you meant 'normal' people copied them for screensavers or some such

When you find the culprits, what do you do about it? Send them an invoice? Or ask them to take to down?

 

[Toothie]

btw you can set your flickr settings to prevent people from down laoding the images. Its some where in the my acount settings.

 

[petemc]

Doesn't stop the print screen.

 

[W.Smith]

I have a huge problem of my pictures being stolen and used without permission or payment.

Copying is the sincerest form of flattery.
My, my, my, you must be one hell of a photographer!
And in that case, sir/madam, you don't really have a "problem" at all. Just an imaginary one.
Most peeps around here would wish they had your "problem"!

Watermarking has almost stopped it.

Of course! Who wants a disfigured photo?
But how do you know your watermarking "has almost stopped it"? Unless you have a huge organisation checking the whole internet every day for you, your notion is just so much wishful thinking! You simply have no way of knowing!

Have fun!

 

[digitalfailure]

Diddy

Unless the Govt. have finally seen sense and implemented a "private right to copy" adding copyrighted music to a publication / compilation it is technically still stealing and breach of the owners copyright.
The copyright laws are so far behind the digital age it's unreal.

 

[Byker28i]

I've posted this before. About 3-4 years ago I had issues with someone selling a cd of car images on Ebay, over 100 of which were taken from my website.
I contacted the user and suggested that if my images were good enough for him to sell perhaps he'd like the full res images, he refused so I explained I hadn't given permission and would he remove them - he agreed but the next copy of his cd had all the images from my website plus the videos I'd made.
I contacted him again and he said that as I'd accussed him je thought he'd steal everything and there wasn't anything I could do about it.
It took a long time to get the matter resolved with ebay and still leaves me with a bad taste.

 

[JumboBeef]

I also have a huge problem with my images being stolen...........and it isn't always because the picture is great.

I (with my wife) run the world's largest Airedale Terrier website: www.planetairedale.com It is full of pictures of Airedales, most of them just 'snaps', however this doesn't stop them being 'stolen' by others out there, when they want Airedale Terrier pictures.

Even ITV 'stole' two photographs for use in one of their Dramas, they are always turning up on eBay and other places. However, I wouldn't want to spoil all the photographs with watermarks.

 

[InaGlo]

Interesting point of course, for my take on it I'd have to refer to a few of my clients who are solicitors and also police personnel whose opinion I have asked - the view given to me is, if the client already has the music in their cd collection and I'm not selling them the music as part of the package, merely adding their own music to their photos for them for free it's no different to me providing them with a music-less dvd and them playing their cd as background

Diddy, I am surprised your clients in the law profession say the above.
We even need a licence to play our own music CD's within earshot of our clients... and Im talking a home salon here.


Back on topic, has anyone actually ever successfully sued/received payment for having their stolen images used?

 

[DiddyDave]

Okay - so my Solicitor mates who are also clients and their Police counterparts are happy to be criminals too as receivers of stolen goods!

I'll stop immediately, thanks for the info

DD

 

[Jimmy_Lemon]

Interesting point of course, for my take on it I'd have to refer to a few of my clients who are solicitors and also police personnel whose opinion I have asked - the view given to me is, if the client already has the music in their cd collection and I'm not selling them the music as part of the package, merely adding their own music to their photos for them for free it's no different to me providing them with a music-less dvd and them playing their cd as background

I am no expert DD, but I think you could get into some serious trouble if you were caught out. The theory of "they could be playing the music in the background" just wouldnt wash with the law. If it did that could be applied to annying! Advertisers on tv could use a tune and say "yeah but it is just like the viewers listening to this song while they watched the advert" - At the basic level the clients sending you the track they want on the DVD is a copyright infringment, as they are giving you a song (theoretically) you don't own. You then make a copy of that onto your computer, another copy onto the DVD, then any copys of that dvd you send them. It all mounts up and could cause you some major problems. Not meant to sound like I am having a go, but working as I do with a DVD Productions company I have picked up a thing or two....just be carefull

Copying is the sincerest form of flattery.

You have said a lot of things on other threads I have disagreed with, but this is just too far and utter 'BS' - Anyone using you image without your concent is a theif in the eyes of the law. If you dont value your shots enough to worry about people stealing them then fair enough. But to come out with frankly stupid phrase like that! Good god man! (out of context, like I have quote it, it is a fair enough statement, I have tried many times to replicate a shot myself using my own skills etc...but you seem quite happy with the idea of someone using other peoples pictures for personal gain)

Back on topic, has anyone actually ever successfully sued/received payment for having their stolen images used?

I have never had to, but would be really interested to know if anyone on here has done.

 

[Lufbrarunner]

........................................
Back on topic, has anyone actually ever successfully sued/received payment for having their stolen images used?

I had an image used on a website without my permission, I sent a stiff but polite e.mail pointing this out and was offered payment for it's continued use, as this was a local athletics site ( an area I was interested in supplying images to) I declined payment and asked them to give me credit for the image, which they did. I occasionaly supply images to them now.

 

[JimLin1965]

btw you can set your flickr settings to prevent people from down laoding the images. Its some where in the my acount settings.

I@ve not managed to work out how to limit the size of the photos available on the public view of my flickr account. I would be grateful if anyone could point me in the direction of the control.

Cheers,
JimLin

 

[Jimmy_Lemon]

I@ve not managed to work out how to limit the size of the photos available on the public view of my flickr account. I would be grateful if anyone could point me in the direction of the control.

Cheers,
JimLin

I think there maybe a way to stop none contacts from viewing your full size image, but cant swear to that. I just only upload 800x533pixel images, so that is the largest that anyone can view them at.

 

[CT]

btw you can set your flickr settings to prevent people from down laoding the images. Its some where in the my acount settings.

I don't use Flickr so I can't help with their settings. The best protection is to limit the file size to around 600 pixels, I think that sucks tbh, but at least it strictly limits the use of the file. Ultimately there's no protection anyway - even if right clicking on the pic is disabled there's no protection that I'm aware of from the 'Print Screen' button on the keyboard. :shrug:

 

[cjnicolai]

I have had lots of problems over the years with image theft by other photographers. My bigger problem, though, has always been the plagiarism of the text that accompanies my images. I've got a legal file several inches thick with screenshots, correspondence, etc.

In both cases, I immediately send the thief a polite note letting them know I am aware of their actions, as well as a bill for the use of my marketing materials. The letter is worded very officially and with proper legal terminology, which typically scares the hair off the thief. (That's particularly true of those who plagiarize my text, because that's much easier to prove in court.) Both the letter and the bill have very short timeframes for compliance, and the bill is in the amount of $100 US for each 24 hours my work is "in use."

I typically receive an extremely swift response, and have several times actually received the billed amount. Really, it's not the money I'm after; I just need to know that the photographer learned something. Nothing is learned if there are no consequences.

Please note that the above doesn't apply to those who, for example, include an image of mine in a personal blog, unless they're claiming to be the creator of the image. Their actions are still illegal, but they're not profiting from my work, and they are usually unaware that what they've done is wrong.

- CJ

 

[W.Smith]

Back on topic, has anyone actually ever successfully sued/received payment for having their stolen images used?

Exactly!

IF "successfully" is defined as: all your time, efforts, aggravation, and incurred expenses were worth the trouble/net end result.

Somehow, I don't expect you'll get many 'takers' on your question, InaGlo!

you seem quite happy with the idea of someone using other peoples pictures for personal gain

That is an amazing 'conclusion'/projection on your part, Jimmy! I said it's not worth the trouble to go all out to try to protect your photos with watermarks, or to pursue 'perpetrators'. I never said stealing is OK!
Better read a little more carefully next time and count to 10 before you jump to conclusions.

 

[cjnicolai]

Exactly!

IF "successfully" is defined as: all your time, efforts, and incurred expenses were worth the trouble/net end result.

Yes, as described in my post above. The key is to get the money without having to go to court. It's absolutely worth it, and the way I go about it requires very little time and energy on my part.

- CJ

 

[W.Smith]

Can you back that up, cj?

 

[cjnicolai]

Back it up with what, W.?

Edited to add:

I'd be happy to "back it up" if you can tell me how. The problem is that I can't really think of a way to do it. If the offending photog has complied (which they all have in different ways) then there is no evidence of the copying left on their websites. I can't (actually won't) prove that they paid, because I'm not going to reveal the photographer's name or my business records online. Once a photog has complied, I don't feel it would be ethical or professional (or nice) to rat them out to the online world.

So, let me know if you can think of a way I can "back that up" and I'd be happy to consider it.


- CJ

 

[JumboBeef]

Back on topic, has anyone actually ever successfully sued/received payment for having their stolen images used?

YES!

I have never sued, but have pointed out my rights etc. to the seller/user and I received £2,000 for the use of two photographs in ITV's afterlife drama, and I received a free copy of a painting, plus regular payments for other paintings sold, all of which were based on one of my photographs.

 

[JumboBeef]

............this is the painting I was talking about:

http://www.pop-art-lounge.de/airedale_1.html

..which is based on this photograph:

www.planetairedale.com/images16/airedale_terrier.JPG

....which was taken without permission (NOT by the painting's seller and I have sorted it all out now).

 

[cjnicolai]

For interest's sake, I'm going to add this little bit I wrote several years ago after having had one to many "so what?" responses by those who had stolen my text and/or images.

That incident resulted in my VERY public stance on plagiarism (below) which I wrote specifically for a the participants on a certain photography forum (not TP.) I was finding that most of the people who were "borrowing" from me had that forum in common.

I did actually put this wording on my fine art website briefly, before deciding it read like a bit of a temper tantrum and removed it. I do still pull it out from time to time, if only to feel better for having reliving my very cathartic public rant. I've softened up a bit in my old age, and now simply go the non-emotional route I mentioned above. It's greatly improved my quality of life. LOL.

- CJ

My Policy on Plagiarists


Because this has become such a major issue in my business, I am going to take a moment here to publicly state my stand on plagiarism. Please note that this is about plagiarism (directly stealing my words and/or ideas via written word) as opposed to “emulation” (when others attempt to recreate my images without any credit given to me.)

I have in the past handled this issue delicately. When I have discovered someone plagiarizing my work, I have privately e-mailed the offending party to fix the issue. If they addressed the plagiarism promptly, I would let it go (although of course I kept printouts of the copied work in case it should ever be needed.) It allowed the plagiarizer to avoid public embarrassment.

I now have a three-inch thick file stuffed with evidence of plagiarism by those who I allowed to quietly rip me off with no consequences whatsoever.

It’s interesting when confronting a plagiarizer that they often try to justify their actions. I consistently hear “it was inadvertent”, “ I didn’t know it was wrong”, or even worse, claims that they were somehow entitled to financially profit from my hard work. They often act like they are doing me a favor by removing the plagiarized text. Plagiarism is no accident. It is not an “oops” by the copycat. Plagiarism does not commit itself. Plagiarism is the result of either laziness or greed.

We work in an industry where creativity is money. Those who “borrow” my creativity are “borrowing” money that they never intend to repay. It is theft, plain and simple, not just of my income but also of my time. Plagiarists force ME to spend MY time addressing THEIR actions. It hurts the industry, and it hurts me personally. As someone who spends a lot of time and energy teaching and working with other photographers, it really stings when people feel entitled to financially profit from my blood, sweat, and tears.

If you choose to steal my work (words or images) I will choose to publicly share your actions with your peers. It’s that simple. I will no longer protect your reputation at my own expense. I do not “owe” you the “courtesy” of a private e-mail, and I won’t feel remotely sorry for the embarrassment you will probably feel.

You invited the consequences when you stole from me.

 

[awp]

YES!

I have never sued, but have pointed out my rights etc. to the seller/user and I received £2,000 for the use of two photographs in ITV's afterlife drama, and I received a free copy of a painting, plus regular payments for other paintings sold, all of which were based on one of my photographs.

YES!! I recovered a 4 figure sum this past year - I always invoice TWICE the rate they would have paid if they'd come through the proper channels and asked first. I have had some VERY high profile people/organisations steal my work - but they've always paid in the end - better that than bad publicity I suppose but it's a PIA to me. I don't find it flattering at all - the pictures don't have to be fantastic - just what they want - and in many cases pictures they can't go and take themselves instantly (wrong time of year for example).

On the other issue - CDs have a copyright notice which prohibits you copying them without a licence.

 

[Marcel]

Better read a little more carefully next time and count to 10 before you jump to conclusions.

Maybe it would be easier to not write a post and attempt to smother it in sarcasm, that way people might understand you better

 

[sportysnaps]

Mmm this post has got a little heated in places (justified) - I just wanted to add 2 of my thoughts.
We should all protect our work, althought there are several ways of doing this, very few are perfect, and all have disadvantages.:bang:
If we expect others to respect our work then we should respect others work whether it be photos video or music
so


If you want to add music to a video (as I have done) or a photo DVD there are two very easy - fully legal :rules:ways to do this.
1) pay a licence fee to use the music
2) buy the rights to some music - I have used and very highly recomend the music at http://www.akmmusic.co.uk
http://www.notepadmusic.com/royalty_free_music.htm
http://www.nvmdigital.com

 

[J Gordon]

Interesting debate as ever, this one. I always go after thieves and mostly they settle pretty quickly, often because they haven't considered copyright applies to photography rather than malice.
To the poster who said it is 'flattering' to have your work stolen, if your car was stolen would you be flattered by the thiefs choice?

 

[sprog]

The internet is a fickle beast indeed, we enjoy the free exposure it gives our images yet get annoyed when people wander around and actually take what we've posted on a public web or forum.

Would you be surprised if you left a bunch of your prints on display in the street with a sign saying 'here, look at my lovely images' and people had the audacity to take some without paying?

 

[awp]

Some people go into shops and lift goods without paying - it's called shoplifting - it's a criminal offence! Stealing pictures is no different, and it can also be a criminal offence. Perhaps if made you're living from photography your view would be entirely different.

 

[sprog]

Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate how fustrating it can be, but you're comparing apples with oranges (or someone stealing a low res. jpg of your image off the internet to someone walking into your studio and stealing a 8x10 glossy print off your wall) we're talking internet, not retail outlets, that was the point I was trying to make. If you take advantage of the free or low cost advertising provided by the internet you've got to accept the risks.

A shop wouldn't display their goods liberally scattered around the street unsupervised would they? No, they pay rent & tax for a premises and pay wages to people to work in their shops to sell the goods.

 

[awp]

I don't scatter work around the internet now without protection either - I have to use ugly watermarks on the pictures but it more or less stops the thieves. I also use various track and trace to try to find my pictures around the web - obviously I probably won't find them all but the ones I do catch find it an expensive experience.

 

[sprog]

Not unreasonable precautions considering that you are trying to make a living from your images. But people who mistakenly believe that no-one is going to nick their stuff when it's effectively put in the public domain I do find a little naive.

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

Sprog ... You wouldn't steal an apple from the outside grocers would you, and if you where hungry enough that you just had to, you'd know it was wrong wouldn't you...

Just because the internet is cheep doesn't mean the law no longer applies fella... its not the internet that makes the money, its the hard work and talent of the photographer after all.

--

I use the watermark/banner method on my site, to be honest I'm not expecting to make many sales through it next year after it goes live in the next few weeks, its mainly intended to be an online brocher to aid my marketing... its unfortunate that I have to protect my art in this way and to be honest I'm gutted I can't show my images in full, but I've made a plan and I'm going to see it through.

 

[richmond]

Interesting, if a little heated, discussion here.

When I started reading the thread I thought 'Wish I had that problem'. My pics are so bad I wouldn't steal 'em let alone any one else. :shake:

I preferred to think the majority of the human race lived by the same moral code as me. Then I remembered, I've lifted pictures from around the internet to illustrate items I've sold on ebay. I'll stop that right now as I really didn't know it was stealing.

 

[sprog]

Sprog ... You wouldn't steal an apple from the outside grocers would you, and if you where hungry enough that you just had to, you'd know it was wrong wouldn't you...

Again, you make the same invalid comparison as awp.

Apples will always be stolen and kids will always shoplift, it's wrong, but why do people continually act hurt and surprised when their posted images are lifted off the internet?

I've lost count of the number of threads in photography forums started by people bleating about it, yes it's naughty and it's annoying but unless you're prepared to invest in the copyright protection measures employed by people such as awp then you've got it coming, especially if you want to enjoy the huge exposure the internet provides.