Stupidity and people stealing my photos

J

James J

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,794
Name
James
Edit My Images
No
Howdy all,

Thought I'd share with you some news of what I just found out about one of my photos being stolen and submitted to ITV. It was used as the background to their weather program, but I don't know when. The more annoying thing is, the person they credited for it wasn't me. Instead it was someone who obviously likes to go around stealing other peoples work, commonly known as a ****.

So this is the image in action:

643878_10152191884710214_1005621797_n.jpg


And the actual image:


Psilocybe semilanceata by jjohnson2012, on Flickr

Now, this image has been sold a few times on istock to a few companies since I took it in early october this year. Its a very niche photograph though as its of psilocybe semilanceata, or the magic mushroom...

So to summarise, someone stole my photo, submitted it to ITV weather where it was shown live on air to hundreds of thousands of people and not only did ITV give credit to someone who doesn't own copyright, they also showed a picture of a class A substance for their autumn shot.

Bonus!

I've put in a complaint through ITV asking for more information so we'll see what happens.
 
Last edited:
Actually... I'd be happy that they've broadcast a massive pic of a magic mushy.

Images get ripped off, and sometimes there's not much you can do about it.

I once pitched for a Ever Ready ad via an agency in London when I worked down there. I produced a test and artwork for an idea of women holding up torches as if they were runway lights... they turned the idea down, and gave me the "we'll call you" response. Several weeks later, 48 sheet billboards of women holding up torches on a flat roof with a plane coming in to land appeared around London.

What do you do? They just denied everything, and insisted that you can't copyright an idea. I was naive and skint... they got away with it.

Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger :)
 
True that you can't copyright an idea, but you can and do have copyright on images. Why should I be proud when my work isn't even being displayed as mine? If someone buys the image and uses it, they have ever right to as they bought it, yet this was just stolen instead. I've sold the image a few times to american drug and alcohol companies/organisations and I doubt any of them submit shots to ITV weather lol.
 
James, just to set you straight, your image has not been stolen as in the Theft Act.

The good news is that copyright infringements are now, supposedly, a lot easier to deal with. There is an article about this on one of the early pages of this Tuesdays (4th Dec) Amateur Photographer magazine.
The article is very interesting and perhaps you can be one of the first to see if it actually works!!

Andy
 
Apparently if you drop a picture into the google search box and click 'find similar' that can throw up where else it is on the web. Doesn't help if they've just downloaded it from somewhere and pinged it to ITV though.

There's also a programme called TinEye that does similar but I think it's connected to photoshelter somehow.

On a separate note. Seeing as you describe the picture as niche and have it captioned with the scientific name, why are you selling it on iStock? Have you tried the specialist nature picture agencies? Check them out you could get a better deal!
 
Im sure i read somewhere (maybe here) about a picture of a London bus in red with the rest of the pic in b&w. Someone copied the idea & sold mugs or postcards. Im sure the original artist succesfully won a 'copyright' case. Anyone else remember it?
 
snoop69 said:
Im sure i read somewhere (maybe here) about a picture of a London bus in red with the rest of the pic in b&w. Someone copied the idea & sold mugs or postcards. Im sure the original artist succesfully won a 'copyright' case. Anyone else remember it?
Click to expand...

Sounds familiar.
 
snoop69 said:
Im sure i read somewhere (maybe here) about a picture of a London bus in red with the rest of the pic in b&w. Someone copied the idea & sold mugs or postcards. Im sure the original artist succesfully won a 'copyright' case. Anyone else remember it?
Click to expand...

I think that this is the case you mean

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/25/Imitated_Image_Copyright_Case

I think that the case was all about a similar image, not even the same one.
I hope that the OP has some success in his case, because people who steal images are just scum.
 
snoop69 said:
Im sure i read somewhere (maybe here) about a picture of a London bus in red with the rest of the pic in b&w. Someone copied the idea & sold mugs or postcards. Im sure the original artist succesfully won a 'copyright' case. Anyone else remember it?
Click to expand...

Yes, a tea company and a souvenir company.
 
snoop69 said:
Im sure i read somewhere (maybe here) about a picture of a London bus in red with the rest of the pic in b&w. Someone copied the idea & sold mugs or postcards. Im sure the original artist succesfully won a 'copyright' case. Anyone else remember it?
Click to expand...

That story was sold as the photographer being sued for stealing 'an idea', but that was far from the truth.

The story was, a guy sells merchandise showing an image of a colour popped bus on tower bridge. Photographer sends. Invoice, trader ignores and then replaces image with one he's taken himself that's similar. Original photographer sues. He won the case because a copyright thief tried to push his luck, if it'd been a case of just stealing the idea, he wouldn't have had a leg to stand on.
 
I never knew magic mushies were class A! It used to be the case that they weren't illegal until they were 'cooked' - but a quick google and it seems they are now illegal to possess in any form. Interesting, as they grow wild and free in fields not too far from where I live.
 
Cagey75 said:
I never knew magic mushies were class A! It used to be the case that they weren't illegal until they were 'cooked' - but a quick google and it seems they are now illegal to possess in any form. Interesting, as they grow wild and free in fields not too far from where I live.
Click to expand...

They grow in the woodland next to my street (literally 20 second walk away) and in large numbers. Was disturbing to see them really but a good photo opportunity regardless.

As for the niche comment. Niche doesn't necessarily mean something that is so unrealistic in terms of sales potential you might as well not bother, it can mean that other images of similar standard could be few in number, either due to tagging or actual content. The image has sold a few times so far, but all to drug and alcohol companies or organisations such as rehab centres etc. (All american)
 
Invoice ITV Weather and threaten to sue for damages.

It's not theft but it sure looks like a Copyright Infringement.
 
st599 said:
Invoice ITV Weather and threaten to sue for damages.

It's not theft but it sure looks like a Copyright Infringement.
Click to expand...

If they operate a system like the BBC does, they don't actually buy images but have them submitted by members of the public. Due to that, its that member of the public who has breached my copyright, with ITV doing so without possibly knowing.
 
If its on Istock then it's owned by Getty who are hot on infringement. If there's a way to report its use via them they'll do more damage to itv than you could manage.
 
James J said:
If they operate a system like the BBC does, they don't actually buy images but have them submitted by members of the public. Due to that, its that member of the public who has breached my copyright, with ITV doing so without possibly knowing.
Click to expand...

The great thing is that the publisher is responsible. You are free to sue ITV who would have to sue the person that submitted it to them.
 
James J said:
If they operate a system like the BBC does, they don't actually buy images but have them submitted by members of the public. Due to that, its that member of the public who has breached my copyright, with ITV doing so without possibly knowing.
Click to expand...

No, ITV published it.
 
andy700 said:
I think that the case was all about a similar image, not even the same one.
Click to expand...

Apologies, i meant to quote Pookeyheads post regarding the lights, ladies & planes.
 
James J said:
As for the niche comment. Niche doesn't necessarily mean something that is so unrealistic in terms of sales potential you might as well not bother, it can mean that other images of similar standard could be few in number, either due to tagging or actual content. The image has sold a few times so far, but all to drug and alcohol companies or organisations such as rehab centres etc. (All american)
Click to expand...

No what I was suggesting is that you could have a look at a specialist picture library and sell for more:thumbs:
 
Cagey75 said:
I never knew magic mushies were class A! It used to be the case that they weren't illegal until they were 'cooked' - but a quick google and it seems they are now illegal to possess in any form. Interesting, as they grow wild and free in fields not too far from where I live.
Click to expand...

Drugs Act 2005, Clause 21

they are now illegal to deliberately grow, source, possess, and possess with intent to supply (including grow kits) - they are not illegal to have growing wild on your land so long as there is no intent to cultivate or harvest
 
Phil V said:
That story was sold as the photographer being sued for stealing 'an idea', but that was far from the truth.

The story was, a guy sells merchandise showing an image of a colour popped bus on tower bridge. Photographer sends. Invoice, trader ignores and then replaces image with one he's taken himself that's similar. Original photographer sues. He won the case because a copyright thief tried to push his luck, if it'd been a case of just stealing the idea, he wouldn't have had a leg to stand on.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is quite right from what I remember, tho at the time it was widely mis reported.

They stole togs image, he sued or threatened to sue, they agreed terms. They used for a bit then decided to reconstruct his image using stock image parts to avoid paring him.

This they decided was breech of copyright.

The Internet then decided this meant that you could copyright a photo and no one could take a similar photo, without breaching your copyright and there was a bit of an uproar.

However The judge even said if the company had re-shot the photo they wouldn't have infringed copy right. This bit got ignored....

...there is a very good write up of the whole case out there, if you can find it.
 
TheDrift- said:
I don't think this is quite right from what I remember, tho at the time it was widely mis reported.

They stole togs image, he sued or threatened to sue, they agreed terms. They used for a bit then decided to reconstruct his image using stock image parts to avoid paring him.

This they decided was breech of copyright.

The Internet then decided this meant that you could copyright a photo and no one could take a similar photo, without breaching your copyright and there was a bit of an uproar.

However The judge even said if the company had re-shot the photo they wouldn't have infringed copy right. This bit got ignored....

...there is a very good write up of the whole case out there, if you can find it.
Click to expand...
Late last night - the first case actually went to court. The vendor actually commissioned or shot the new image with the express intent of not paying any further license fees for the original image. That was the basis of the judgement, not really about copyright of the original image - more about the fact the vendor was deliberately circumventing a previous court decision.

Whichever way round - it has nothing to do with the OP's situation.

The OP can rightfully invoice / sue ITV for breach of his copyright.
 
You can't really blame ITV if they broadcast what they thought was someone else's photo. Something something good faith something. They might tell you who submitted it and you can tell them off.
 
Mojo Fones said:
You can't really blame ITV if they broadcast what they thought was someone else's photo. Something something good faith something. They might tell you who submitted it and you can tell them off.
Click to expand...

No, ITV published it. It is up to them to gain rights clearances. If the person who sent them it said it was his they are the victims of fraud and their legal department will sort the person out.
 
James,

Infuriating!

Just out of interest, how did you end up with a shot of the TV showing your photo? Were you tipped-off or something? Or do you routinely record all weather reports?

That shot's going to be useful if you decide to pursue this.

Mike.
 
Mojo Fones said:
You can't really blame ITV if they broadcast what they thought was someone else's photo. Something something good faith something. They might tell you who submitted it and you can tell them off.
Click to expand...

I despair that some fell that this is even open to question. ITV are legally responsible - they could clearly bulls&*^% their way out of paying many people though so the large corporations are doing something right:thumbs:.

When you offer a photo for publication, you have to 'sign' to say that you own the copyright and are happy with their T&C's. That does nothing to protect them if you've lied - it just means they can pursue you if they get sued.
 
I submitted a photo to the regional Weather part of ITV for the South Coast. It was then shown as backdrop to the weather two days later with my name on it.

However, I was not asked a single thing about T&Cs, copyright or anything else.
 
ernesto said:
I submitted a photo to the regional Weather part of ITV for the South Coast. It was then shown as backdrop to the weather two days later with my name on it.

However, I was not asked a single thing about T&Cs, copyright or anything else.
Click to expand...

Not these?
I'm sure that if they never checked with you at any point during the submission process it was an error. Because they are well aware of the sh!tstorm they could find themselves in and why their T&C's are so complicated (and took a 1 minute search to find).
These would be the important parts in this case:

13. By sending us your content, you agree that ITV can broadcast, publish and edit your content and pass it onto others for similar use by all means and in any media worldwide (including without limitation on the programme and/or on the website) in perpetuity, without any payment being due to you. Please do not submit content unless you accept this.

14. You must own the copyright of any content you submit. Your content will only be accepted if it is solely your work, and it includes no third party images or other third party content. By sending us your content you confirm that you will have not submitted any content which in any way infringes the rights of a third party, or which infringes any applicable laws.

15. By sending us your content you confirm that its use by ITV will not breach another person’s privacy, copyright or any other legal right.
 
st599 said:
No, ITV published it. It is up to them to gain rights clearances. If the person who sent them it said it was his they are the victims of fraud and their legal department will sort the person out.
Click to expand...

If everyone had this attitude then no user photos would ever get submitted anywhere, denying people that little bit of pleasure that comes from submitting images to competition type things.

Can't imagine that ITV has the time nor the patience to vet all images to the extent that they can guarantee the submitter is the photographer. How long winded is that going to be.

I'd guess when you post the images you have to state they are yours anyway. How were ITV to know?

Suing ITV here is beyond pointless.

What loss has been incurred?
 
ACW said:
If everyone had this attitude then no user photos would ever get submitted anywhere, denying people that little bit of pleasure that comes from submitting images to competition type things.

Can't imagine that ITV has the time nor the patience to vet all images to the extent that they can guarantee the submitter is the photographer. How long winded is that going to be.

I'd guess when you post the images you have to state they are yours anyway. How were ITV to know?

Suing ITV here is beyond pointless.

What loss has been incurred?
Click to expand...

Are you serious?

It might be ridiculous for them to vet everything, you're right, so they make the contributor acknowledge that it's theirs. But this doesn't shift the legal position. ITV are responsible for copyright clearance of everything they broadcast - they have whole teams of people who's job it is to make sure this happens.

What loss? The OP has this image available for sale - if ITV wanted to use it there's a rate set (probably) with the library. So the OP has definitely suffered a loss. Why is it pointless to recover that loss?

When will amateur photographers wake up to the fact that some people rely on photography to put food on the table? And when they're giving away their images to large corporations, they're effectively taking those jobs for an ego boost.

I wonder how you'd feel if you lost your job tomorrow because some kid straight from Uni with rich parents decided they would like to do it for no pay?
:bonk:
 
tell the story to the sun, or another tabloid. Im sure they would love to run a story of how ITV used a magic mushroom on their weather broadcast, and without permission from the tog. LOL

I can see the headline now.

ITV weather and The magic of the autumn colours.......!!!
 
Phil V said:
Are you serious?
Click to expand...

Yes why wouldn't I be?


Phil V said:
It might be ridiculous for them to vet everything, you're right, so they make the contributor acknowledge that it's theirs. But this doesn't shift the legal position. ITV are responsible for copyright clearance of everything they broadcast - they have whole teams of people who's job it is to make sure this happens.
Click to expand...

I doubt these whole teams of people focus on something as trivial as user submitted unpaid images for the weather.


Phil V said:
What loss? The OP has this image available for sale - if ITV wanted to use it there's a rate set (probably) with the library. So the OP has definitely suffered a loss. Why is it pointless to recover that loss?
Click to expand...

I sympathise with the OP at the situation. I agree it would be very annoying.

How have you come to the conclusion any food has been taken off the table? The OP would not have been paid by the person who submitted the image or by ITV. At most he could claim for the cost of the image from the person that submitted it.

I fail to see how the accused person submitting someone else's image for free to make no personal gain equates to stealing someone's livelihood. There was no paid job on offer that was done by someone else for free. This is an entirely different matter.


Phil V said:
When will amateur photographers wake up to the fact that some people rely on photography to put food on the table? And when they're giving away their images to large corporations, they're effectively taking those jobs for an ego boost.
Click to expand...

The argument you've given is something I agree with too, but as I said, this is a different scenario.


Phil V said:
I wonder how you'd feel if you lost your job tomorrow because some kid straight from Uni with rich parents decided they would like to do it for no pay?
:bonk:
Click to expand...

Canis canem edit.

But seriously, obviously it would be annoying whatever sector you're in. Some sectors are harder to do as a hobby than others. It's unfortunate for professionals that photography it is an easy subject to get into at an amateur level. Sometimes the consumers don't understand that the professional photographers offer far more reliability and consistent quality output. But I digress.
 
Last edited:
I embed all of my files with full EXIF details so they could have just had a quick look at that and it has my name all over it on all paid sources. ITV have passed my complaint to their newsroom and istock has confirmed the recipients of the sales on that image wasn't that guy who's mentioned on the image, basically confirming that its copyright infringement.

I'll wait and see what ITV actually say before doing anything else.
 
ACW said:
Yes why wouldn't I be?

I doubt these whole teams of people focus on something as trivial as user submitted unpaid images for the weather.
Click to expand...
No they're not checking those pictures. But that doesn't alter the fact that they are responsible for that check . As they're responsible for checking all content, it's their job. Now if they've decided it's not worth checking weather photo's any further than a check box.... Their risk, now their loss.

ACW said:
I sympathise with the OP at the situation. I agree it would be very annoying.

How have you come to the conclusion any food has been taken off the table? The OP would not have been paid by the person who submitted the image or by ITV. At most he could claim for the cost of the image from the person that submitted it.

I fail to see how the accused person submitting someone else's image for free to make no personal gain equates to stealing someone's livelihood. There was no paid job on offer that was done by someone else for free. This is an entirely different matter.
Click to expand...
Food has ben taken off the table because the image ITV used was available for them to buy - but they used it without paying.

You'll notice that the photographers on this thread don't mention the person that submitted the image - because it's irrelevant. ITV published it and they're responsible for that, no matter who you would blame.

ACW said:
The argument you've given is something I agree with too, but as I said, this is a different scenario.
Click to expand...
Thanks:thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top