Very interesting thing happening right now on Flickr. Basically one of the top photographers there, rebekka has found her images being sold on ebay / someones website. She lives in Iceland and the company is in the UK. Now my understanding is that this company has violated UK copyright law because they did not have permission to reproduce these images from her. Unfortunately for her she doesn't live in the UK so she can't pop in to a small claims court and sort things out. There's a lot of comments on her main thread that is well worth reading through. You get things from the simple "Kill em" to people who seem to have a good understanding of copyright law. Its a learning experience for us all and quite simply its a terrible thing to see happen to such a talented amateur photographer.
Stealing IS a crime, right?
- Thread starter petemc
- Start date
- Messages
- 29,411
- Name
- Marcel
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Im not too sure on the copyright aspect, whether they have breached UK law or not (With her being in Iceland etc).
Legalities aside, what they have done is morally wrong. Not too sure on their 'excuses' either, of this company that 'duped' them.
Hope she gets a decent amount of recompense for this, she takes some absolutely stunning images, I remember talking about her last year at the Twycross Zoo meet.
Damn good photographer.
Legalities aside, what they have done is morally wrong. Not too sure on their 'excuses' either, of this company that 'duped' them.
Hope she gets a decent amount of recompense for this, she takes some absolutely stunning images, I remember talking about her last year at the Twycross Zoo meet.
Damn good photographer.
- Messages
- 12,095
- Name
- Tom
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Was going to say that maybe they had been sold those images by someone else who had illegally taken them - but the fact they havent responded to any letters sound a bit fishy!!
They have responded on flickr under the username o_dreemin saying that they were had by someone posing as a photographer with low-res images. God knows how they got large canvas prints from 72dpi web size images.
Regarding the copyright. If in Russia they can get away with selling US or UK music without violating Russian copyright law then surely this company has violated UK copyright law by using her images without permission.
inophoto
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 474
- Name
- Jamie Adams
- Edit My Images
- No
Exactly. That's the first thing I thought.
However there are tricks to get original sized images out of flickr even when the user has barred it (assuming that they uploaded original size in the first place). Flickr itself offers no guarantee on the mechanisms that they use to prevent people viewing different sizes.
Very cheeky to offer someone else's images for sale. As a photographer i'm struggling to find anything else that offends me more. :razz:
photo-request
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 119
- Edit My Images
- No
i had a big argument about this the other day
i was in skipton looking at the craft fair as i mentioned to some of you in the chat room, thinking of getting a stall. Well to cut a long story short there was someone selling prints that were stunning, so as a photographer does you try and talk to them.
I asked him what camera he used and he said i dont have a camera, so i said how do you take these stunning photos. He said i dont, i find pictures i like scan them and tweak them a bit and then print them off.
Well that was it i blew my top and explained uk law to him, he said it didnt matter to him as he gets pictures he likes off the internet from sites hosted in china, as the copyright laws arnt the same over there and he can get a way with it. I informed him that i supply 6 stock sites and if i ever see one of my images for sale on his stall that i would take legal action so fast he wouldnt make it back to blackpool.
I think its a joke, why cant they do the work themselves. there has to be a way for us to protect our work online. This is why i dont like it when microstock sites dont tell you who buys your image. you dont know who has genuinely bought the photograph
i was in skipton looking at the craft fair as i mentioned to some of you in the chat room, thinking of getting a stall. Well to cut a long story short there was someone selling prints that were stunning, so as a photographer does you try and talk to them.
I asked him what camera he used and he said i dont have a camera, so i said how do you take these stunning photos. He said i dont, i find pictures i like scan them and tweak them a bit and then print them off.
Well that was it i blew my top and explained uk law to him, he said it didnt matter to him as he gets pictures he likes off the internet from sites hosted in china, as the copyright laws arnt the same over there and he can get a way with it. I informed him that i supply 6 stock sites and if i ever see one of my images for sale on his stall that i would take legal action so fast he wouldnt make it back to blackpool.
I think its a joke, why cant they do the work themselves. there has to be a way for us to protect our work online. This is why i dont like it when microstock sites dont tell you who buys your image. you dont know who has genuinely bought the photograph
Witch
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,731
- Name
- Robyn
- Edit My Images
- No
I have to say I never upload anything bigger than 10" x 6" 72dpi to a site with public access. Anything I want to print goes to Photobox and only to photobox. I really hope that this lass sorts these gits out - there is no way they should be able to get away with this.
kissfoto
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,777
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
First off report them to Ebay, they have broken their terms of service by selling goods, stolen or otherwise, without the owners permission. Contact a good lawyer in UK and pay for a couple of very nasty letters to the effect of taking the matter to court here in UK and see what happens. :bonk: 
MichaelPlace
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 396
- Edit My Images
- Yes
if you read the comments in her blog thing on her flickr it says she has told ebay. But ebay are spineless morons who only write their rules to suit themselves. Apparently this company on eGay are a powerseller and do loads of business - so as far as ebay are concerned, they hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.
She seems a nice lass, partially naive in posting images that large, but still harsh for someone to steal them.
You can leave your car unlocked every day for a year - eventually someone will steal your car, it's just a matter of time. It's your car, you own it, you worked hard for it, and yes it is wrong for them to steal it - but in leaving the car door open you invited trouble. In a perfect world this wouldn't happen but there are true scum in this world.
I can't believe out of all the exposure she seems to have gained how she hasn't found a UK lawyer wishing to send a few letters on the cheap to try and push them a little but further.
She seems a nice lass, partially naive in posting images that large, but still harsh for someone to steal them.
You can leave your car unlocked every day for a year - eventually someone will steal your car, it's just a matter of time. It's your car, you own it, you worked hard for it, and yes it is wrong for them to steal it - but in leaving the car door open you invited trouble. In a perfect world this wouldn't happen but there are true scum in this world.
I can't believe out of all the exposure she seems to have gained how she hasn't found a UK lawyer wishing to send a few letters on the cheap to try and push them a little but further.
- Messages
- 26,617
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I doubt very much if this constitutes property within the meaning of the Theft Act. It isn't as if they've physically nicked a hard copy print (which would constitute 'property' ) they've made unauthorised use (she claims) of a pile of pixels or a data file.. however you look at it.
If it isn't property then there can be no offence of Receiving Stolen Property, and that's a non starter anyway.
It's clearly about copyright. I haven't read all the thread, but she can get her solicitors letters off, and they flex their muscles and get their bigger badder brief to reply... and so it goes on. Going to law with something like this is extremely risky. On the face of it she's a victim, but it often isn't a case of rights or wrongs it's what you can actually prove. If you lose it can cost you big time.
It's a cautionary tale about posting large images on the net for sure. How big were they?
If it isn't property then there can be no offence of Receiving Stolen Property, and that's a non starter anyway.
It's clearly about copyright. I haven't read all the thread, but she can get her solicitors letters off, and they flex their muscles and get their bigger badder brief to reply... and so it goes on. Going to law with something like this is extremely risky. On the face of it she's a victim, but it often isn't a case of rights or wrongs it's what you can actually prove. If you lose it can cost you big time.
It's a cautionary tale about posting large images on the net for sure. How big were they?
pxl8
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 5,288
- Name
- Andy Jones
- Edit My Images
- Yes
As any legal remedy is a civil matter the burden of proof is much lower. The company who sold the images can't argue that they were duped (ignorance is no defence). They would have to sue the person who sold to them to recover their own costs. It's the same principal as buying a duff product from a shop - you take action against the shop who in turn could take action against the manufacturer.
It is shocking
but by sharing them on the web, arnt you in essence doing exactly that, sharing?
It is dispicable to take credit for some body else work in that way, and perhaps it could be covered in law in the say way as plaigurism (SP) but its a grey area at the moment.
It takes these kinds of stories to sometimes kick start politicians and law makers to create acts / laws so hopefully they may do so in the future if there is a clear one now.
Really hope her solicitors can help her out.
on a slight side point
I used to leave my car unlocked all the time, trusting my imoboliser to stop the car being stolen, in the theory that if some one wanted to try and steal it, there would be less damage if they opened the door and found it to be imobolised rather than smashing the window to find it imobolised.
didnt quite work though, I left it unlocked in a "secure" place one day, and The £$%£$% smashed the window anyway, they were too idle to even try the door. you cant even rely on theives doing their job properly these days.
but by sharing them on the web, arnt you in essence doing exactly that, sharing?
It is dispicable to take credit for some body else work in that way, and perhaps it could be covered in law in the say way as plaigurism (SP) but its a grey area at the moment.
It takes these kinds of stories to sometimes kick start politicians and law makers to create acts / laws so hopefully they may do so in the future if there is a clear one now.
Really hope her solicitors can help her out.
on a slight side point
I used to leave my car unlocked all the time, trusting my imoboliser to stop the car being stolen, in the theory that if some one wanted to try and steal it, there would be less damage if they opened the door and found it to be imobolised rather than smashing the window to find it imobolised.
didnt quite work though, I left it unlocked in a "secure" place one day, and The £$%£$% smashed the window anyway, they were too idle to even try the door. you cant even rely on theives doing their job properly these days.
milou
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,386
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Sharing on the web doesn't give anyone the right to breach the photographer's copyright. The law, of course, is reactionary in that action can only be taken after the event complained of. The fear of breaching copyright and the subsequent penalties are often mere inconsequences to those in breach.
but to get a copyright dont you have to actually copyright something. Or does taking a picture automatically copyright that image.
and if somebody else takes the same subject on a different day, would that be in breach of copyright.
i dont know, nor pretend to know, copyright law. It all seems very ambigious to me.
A persons work (whether it be pictures, or writing or the building of a wall) should be respected by other people, the problem is, the people who "steal" another persons work, simply dont respect other people and that is where the whole system falls over.
and if somebody else takes the same subject on a different day, would that be in breach of copyright.
i dont know, nor pretend to know, copyright law. It all seems very ambigious to me.
A persons work (whether it be pictures, or writing or the building of a wall) should be respected by other people, the problem is, the people who "steal" another persons work, simply dont respect other people and that is where the whole system falls over.
UK law states that when you take a photo its automatically copyrighted to you. That image you make right there and then is yours. Someone else can come along 5 seconds later and take the same photo and its copyrighted to them. You own the photo, not the place or the moment.
- Messages
- 2,666
- Name
- Alasdair Fowler
- Edit My Images
- Yes
This is a shocking and despicable act. I really hope she gets its sorted, and gets the credit and compensation she deserves. She has some truly stunning work. One thing that I was wondering about; She is reluctant to take this any further through her lawyer due to the costs, does anyone have any rough idea how much we'd be talking about. There seems to be a great amount of support behind her, and I would be more than willing to throw her a few quid if a fund was set up to help her fight a legal battle.
HIMUPNORTH
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 5,178
- Name
- Gary
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Interesting thread Pete, thanks for sharing it with us.
Having seen Marion's blog where she mentioned Moo printing services for Flickr I thought it might be time to upload larger images and restrict access with Flickr controls.
What a joke they are. drop two parts of the URL and you get the max size. Hardly security from a company that should understand the copyright issues intimately.
Max 800 pixel is probably the only way to go still. :shrug:
Having seen Marion's blog where she mentioned Moo printing services for Flickr I thought it might be time to upload larger images and restrict access with Flickr controls.
What a joke they are. drop two parts of the URL and you get the max size. Hardly security from a company that should understand the copyright issues intimately.
Max 800 pixel is probably the only way to go still. :shrug:
MrGrumpy
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 270
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
On Flickr, all images are subject to a license of your choosing and the default is 'All rights reserved'. You do have the option to extend this to allow use if you choose.
- Messages
- 2,934
- Name
- Matthew Egan
- Edit My Images
- No
This problem is getting more out of hand every day.
The only way you can protect your images from being stollen, is to
not upload them to the web in the first place.
I have read recently of a well known pro photographer, displaying another persons image on their
own website, as their own. Only to be spotted by someone who knew the original photog, so after a request it was removed.
This pro however has done this many times before, and still manages to supply big orginisations with images.
The best way to protect yourself is to water mark your photos, but remember it doesn't take much to remove a water mark.
I did a little test and downloaded an 800 pixel image, opened it up in photoshop, then using one of the many
available interpolation packages, made it into quite a large image. The interpolation packages these days do a
very good job of keeping the detail, so the small image posted on the web can easily be made into a quite substantial
framed piece of art.
Have you not reported him to your local trading standards?
I'm sure they would like to hear about this.
If he's earning a living dishonestly, He may be also defrauding the .gov
It doesn't matter if he downloads them from China, as UK law is UK law.
He can still be prosecuted under the copyright protection act.
The only way you can protect your images from being stollen, is to
not upload them to the web in the first place.
I have read recently of a well known pro photographer, displaying another persons image on their
own website, as their own. Only to be spotted by someone who knew the original photog, so after a request it was removed.
This pro however has done this many times before, and still manages to supply big orginisations with images.
The best way to protect yourself is to water mark your photos, but remember it doesn't take much to remove a water mark.
I did a little test and downloaded an 800 pixel image, opened it up in photoshop, then using one of the many
available interpolation packages, made it into quite a large image. The interpolation packages these days do a
very good job of keeping the detail, so the small image posted on the web can easily be made into a quite substantial
framed piece of art.
photo-request said:
Have you not reported him to your local trading standards?
I'm sure they would like to hear about this.
If he's earning a living dishonestly, He may be also defrauding the .gov
It doesn't matter if he downloads them from China, as UK law is UK law.
He can still be prosecuted under the copyright protection act.
Did you set them to private? Thats how I do my Moo cards. I upload separate images and set them to private so no-one can find them.
inophoto
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 474
- Name
- Jamie Adams
- Edit My Images
- No
Looks like the situation has taken a more sinister turn with Flickr censoring the discussion. You would think that they would take an interest in events like this and take stock of it to try and improve their systems.
http://thomashawk.com/2007/05/flickr-censorship.html
http://thomashawk.com/2007/05/flickr-censorship.html
Whoa thats really rather bad. If it wasn't for Flickr she wouldn't have become a huge success and its because of their systems that someone was able to rip off her work. They at least owe her that. They should have moderated the comments removing the "I'll go kick their asses!" and nonsense.
brummie
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,064
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Their site their rules.
Its probably not her fault as such but others making threatening and abusive comments. The only way forward would be to remove the whole item.
I agree with whats been done in principal, maybe she could start a fan club and people donate and buy her some bandwidth of her own to host then she wouldnt have so much trouble? If she is that good it should be pretty easy to find donatee's.
EDIT: Think that last link has got it wrong TBH and probably one of the reasons flickr had to remove the item/s
Its probably not her fault as such but others making threatening and abusive comments. The only way forward would be to remove the whole item.
I agree with whats been done in principal, maybe she could start a fan club and people donate and buy her some bandwidth of her own to host then she wouldnt have so much trouble? If she is that good it should be pretty easy to find donatee's.
EDIT: Think that last link has got it wrong TBH and probably one of the reasons flickr had to remove the item/s
- Messages
- 2,666
- Name
- Alasdair Fowler
- Edit My Images
- Yes
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rebba/500114525/
This is turning out to have more drama than erm... something with a lot of drama.
This is turning out to have more drama than erm... something with a lot of drama.
inophoto
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 474
- Name
- Jamie Adams
- Edit My Images
- No
Yeah, I agree. That's fair enough. Removing the image and all the comments seems a little OTT to me, kinda like they want to disassociate themselves from it. Flickr is getting a lot of bad press about this. A shame because the whole thing isn't entirely their fault. A more moderate approach would help them out though, I think.
EDIT: Three more posts on here while I was writing. I'm glad they have apologised.
EDIT: Three more posts on here while I was writing. I'm glad they have apologised.
- Messages
- 2,666
- Name
- Alasdair Fowler
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Alls well then
maybe time to set her own site up and state her own copyrights etc
Maybe even sell her own pics to fund it. She has some good one on there.
From what ive read, I think she does have her own site. the pics on her site are even smaller than the ones on Flickr, so she is presuming that her work was stolen from Flickr. Im not sure why she doesn't sell her work, as she would be very sucessfull. Having said that, I don't think starting to sell stuff while all this mess is going on is the best thing to do. But once its all over (And hopefully justice has been served, and she has reveived the money and credit she deserves) then I do hope she starts selling.
- Messages
- 2,666
- Name
- Alasdair Fowler
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Agreed. Its all gone a bit Daily Mail. "Ban this filth!!!!" Its all video games fault I'm sure
- Messages
- 15,801
- Edit My Images
- Yes