Unlicensed use of images

Les McLean

Les McLean

In Memoriam
Suspended / Banned
Messages
6,793
Name
Les
Edit My Images
Yes
Rather than just the usual rant about such an issue, I'd be interested to know what folks approaches/solutions to their images being used unlicensed?

The reason I'm asking is I'm finding quite a number of my images being used elsewhere, without my consent, or even being credited for the image.

An example (after a google image search), I found that this image:
76611165_p55PFgJy_76611165_q6bLWLJ1_Yorkshirepb151343.jpg


Appearing on 'walkityorkshire' website, a slice of their home page shows it:

Capture.JPG


It also appears in 'bible2blog.com' :)

While I'm not particularly seeking payment for these and the rest, it would be important to be credited for the images, I'd be interested in how other togs approach this problem?
 
if all you want is credit they will simply apologise for using it and take it down..

personaly i would send them an invoice.. they STOLE your work and not only that.. they edited it..
 
Blimey, they know they've nicked it as they've cropped the pic to take out your watermark.
 
The bible one has been up since feb 2010. I'd send them Exodus 20:15 (thou shall not steal).

The business one would definitely get an invoice for usage, they know exactly what they've done
 
This is wrong and they know it. I've had it done to me a few times. Send them an invoice and see what happens.

I have to say though..... I prefer the crop:lol:
 
Had this quite a bit recently in that Chatsowrth House has been covered in scaffolding for about three years now and I've got one before they started the restoration that has been heavily pirated. Where I've found it I've offered the offender three options. Where it's clearly a commercial site I've asked for payment or deletion (so far it's been deletion), where it's a hobbyist/blog site I've asked for attribution or deletion (50:50 with each so far). I've also found it used on some Russian commercial sites and the chances of me getting it off them is so small it's not worth the bother. Interesting eBlogger/Google have been very helpful with sites built using thier services.

Get tough - if that's what you want to do - but make sure whatever actions you undertake ultimately benefit you.
 
ChrisGilbert said:
Where I've found it I've offered the offender three options. Where it's clearly a commercial site I've asked for payment or deletion (so far it's been deletion), .
Click to expand...

I would have to say thats a poor option to ask... it should be payment AND deletion.. or payment and payment for future use. In fact why are you even giving them options? getting the picture removed is not a win situation IMHO
 
KIPAX said:
I would have to say thats a poor option to ask... it should be payment AND deletion.. or payment and payment for future use. In fact why are you even giving them options? getting the picture removed is not a win situation IMHO
Click to expand...

Under the circumstances - ie theft - Any chances of payment are negligible
 
ChrisGilbert said:
Under the circumstances - ie theft - Any chances of payment are negligible
Click to expand...

Not true. I am currently chasing about 7 companies who have used my images, 2 given me stupid answers and 1 has paid. It isn't a fun thing to do in any way, but I will always chase them for payment if it is commercial use.
 
ChrisGilbert said:
Under the circumstances - ie theft - Any chances of payment are negligible
Click to expand...
Small, maybe. Negligible, far from it.

I would never enter into a discussion or debate. Just send an invoice. If nothing else, by doing so you will be reinforcing the message and increasing the likelihood of having the image removed.

Always, but always, include 'terms' or must-pay-by date on your invoice. And, once that is up, have a third party send a letter on your behalf with another invoice showing interest. If you don't know of a friendly debt recovery company to send this letter.... give me a pm ;)
 
Both reasonable points, agreed. In part it's simply down to time. Given that there are only so many hours in the day, however, I will choose to do the things that I know will pay me rasonable amounts rather than the things that might pay me a small amount.

When I'm sitting there with nothing profitable to get on with I'll pursue them
 
stu_the_flat said:
to behonest I think removing of the watermark (unlicensed editing) could also be added to the fee!
Click to expand...

It's also a wilful infringement, liable to increase any damages that might be sought and potentially a criminal act.
 
I think you should all just be grateful someone wants to use your images!*














* This is not a serious response. I'm just jealous you've all had photos used! :lol:
 
Musicman said:
It's also a wilful infringement, liable to increase any damages that might be sought and potentially a criminal act.
Click to expand...

I very much doubt any of this - as copyright is described by civil law.

This is good news though - as there is no need to go through a lengthy criminal lawsuit process, and as I imagine, there is no presumption that the defendent is innocent until proven guilty.


The corporate UK ones are a piece of cake (no they are not - but at least possible to enforce), what can you do when there are 200 foreign sites from Spain, Romania, US, Portugal, Greece and the Frozen Hell infringing your rights?

I wouldn't even bother with blogs (waste of time) - get google or another host to take them down using their DMCA form.


I can see a big rise in claims since the google by the image search started
 
Les McLean said:
While I'm not particularly seeking payment for these and the rest, it would be important to be credited for the images, I'd be interested in how other togs approach this problem?
Click to expand...

Personally, I don't care about getting credited (as opposed to image not used at all) - unless it generates significant traffic to your website, and sales.
A credit line on a pointless blog won't help to pay any bills
 
Wow ,first off what a great shot, and that is just shameless theft, contact them and as someone said send them an invoice with a letter saying you used my pic without consent and cropped it to edit out my watermark, please pay me such and such for its continued use or kindly take it down.
 
Silvermuir said:
Wow ,first off what a great shot, and that is just shameless theft, contact them and as someone said send them an invoice with a letter saying you used my pic without consent and cropped it to edit out my watermark, please pay me such and such for its continued use or kindly take it down.
Click to expand...

Wiht your advice they can simnply take it down and thats that.. they have got away with stealing it and editing out the watermark.... payment should be made for usage now... giving them an "OR take it down" option is not good advice IMHO
 
KIPAX said:
Wiht your advice they can simnply take it down and thats that.. they have got away with stealing it and editing out the watermark.... payment should be made for usage now... giving them an "OR take it down" option is not good advice IMHO
Click to expand...

A fair point but i was just thinking of what happens with other media like movies or even porn sites for that matter, if you use something without the persons concent you get a cease and desist letter with a stated time frame to take it down, im no expert but i think it would be easier getting sh#t out a rocking horse than getting them to pay you anything for the time thay have used it.
 
Silvermuir said:
A fair point but i was just thinking of what happens with other media like movies or even porn sites for that matter, if you use something without the persons concent you get a cease and desist letter with a stated time frame to take it down, im no expert but i think it would be easier getting sh#t out a rocking horse than getting them to pay you anything for the time thay have used it.
Click to expand...

If your primary intention is to simply get it taken down then yes, other a big NO
 
Silvermuir said:
im no expert but i think it would be easier getting sh#t out a rocking horse than getting them to pay you anything for the time thay have used it.
Click to expand...

if you read all the posts in this thread you will find a lot of photographers actively seek payment for usage without permision... and have had success in the past.... dont let them get away with it! :)
 
Silvermuir said:
A fair point but i was just thinking of what happens with other media like movies or even porn sites for that matter, if you use something without the persons concent you get a cease and desist letter with a stated time frame to take it down, im no expert but i think it would be easier getting sh#t out a rocking horse than getting them to pay you anything for the time thay have used it.
Click to expand...

Completely wrong. They've had an image used commercially for over 20 months for which they need to pay, plus unauthorised use. They have no excuses and it's easy to chase uk companies.

Incidental, ensure you leave all your exif info in your photos and don't strip them. OK some people might strip them, but some don't and it's easy to identify then.
 
Last edited:
Byker28i said:
Completely wrong. They've had an image used commercially for over 20 months for which they need to pay, plus unauthorised use. They have no excuses and it's easy to chase uk companies.

Incidental, ensure you leave all your exif info in your photos and don't strip them. OK some people might strip them, but some don't and it's easy to identify then.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, I only say that because as a camera op i've been approached by adult film companies wanting me to shoot for them ,course i declined but we had a chat about the business and thats pretty much all they can do about their product being nicked. Mind you those sites tend to be user uploaded so the site is just a storage facility, its not actually them themselves who upload it.
 
Silvermuir said:
Fair enough, I only say that because as a camera op i've been approached by adult film companies wanting me to shoot for them ,course i declined but we had a chat about the business and thats pretty much all they can do about their product being nicked. Mind you those sites tend to be user uploaded so the site is just a storage facility, its not actually them themselves who upload it.
Click to expand...

There's a whole new discussion right there on how the adult film/image industry has driven forward web development. Image/media streaming, online payment etc.

Sometimes they chase over image rights. I know a few of the bigger companies that do, however I think the overall output quantity is such that the smaller producers don't bother. Lets face it, someone like Vivid entertainment makes over $100 million and produces over 60 films a year.
 
If they are linking to the original then you'd just amend the original ;)

I'd also make it public. If they have forums or facebook page you'd ask why they have stolen your work. It might not have been them. There are lots of pig ignorant web design companies out there. There are even some passing off other people's clients as their own! If a web design company makes a site then you'd expect them to only use images they have a licence for or that are available for free on a stock site for example.

You could also contact their webhost so they potentially lose their entire site as most have clauses about not having copyright infringing material. You say pay up or you lose hosting. Then follow them if they go to another host and do the same again. After their site has been taken down several times they will probably pay up. You have to be relentless with some though.

Is there a chance that there are people going around downloading decent images and uploading them to stock sites and claiming them as their own work?

There is definitely money to be made in having a chasing and payment collecting service that gets heavy with people continually ripping people's work off.
 
IPP will chase up infringements on a no-win, no-fee basis. They take 25% of the result, but would probably have the nous to get a higher settlement in the first place.

There are photographers out there who make more income from chasing infringements than from new work....
 
I have got some images placed on what I assume are chinese sites. I can't find out much about them as I don't read the lingo and using a translator web app didn't help much.

Plus I can't really see them taking much notice of an invoice from the U.K.
 
What happens in the case where you take something somewhere with non commercial use restrictions eg National Trust property and someone else uses that commercially? Is it your rights or theirs which are infringed or indeed both? Could you get chased for someone else's commercial use?
 
srichards said:
What happens in the case where you take something somewhere with non commercial use restrictions eg National Trust property and someone else uses that commercially? Is it your rights or theirs which are infringed or indeed both? Could you get chased for someone else's commercial use?
Click to expand...

An interesting and as-yet unresolved case study but still a can of worms and no mistake. I don't think you would have any recourse to chase your pirater because technically you wouldn't own the copyright anyway but the copyright holder (NT allegedly) would have recourse to chase your pirater as well as you.

IMO
 
I'm not aware that the NT actually claim copyright of all photographs taken on their premises. They might have you under breach of contract though - i.e. their terms and conditions of entry.
 
Musicman said:
I'm not aware that the NT actually claim copyright of all photographs taken on their premises. They might have you under breach of contract though - i.e. their terms and conditions of entry.
Click to expand...

As I understand it theres some question marks about this. condition of entry need to be posted and visible before entry as I'm told, and some claim free entry onto land doesn't count as you haven't entered a contract and agreed to the terms by paying or signing in. Although I suspect it's debatable at best.
 
Their terms of entry say you can't use the image for commercial purposes. In this scenario I wouldn't have but someone else has stolen it and used it for commercial purposes. It would be like convicting a householder for murder if a burglar stole a knife and stabbed someone if you went after the original photograph taker as they didn't authorise the illegal use.
 
jerry12953 said:
IPP will chase up infringements on a no-win, no-fee basis. They take 25% of the result, but would probably have the nous to get a higher settlement in the first place.

There are photographers out there who make more income from chasing infringements than from new work....
Click to expand...

has anyone used IPP? I've just started another thread about someone nicking an image of mine
 
jerry12953 said:
There are photographers out there who make more income from chasing infringements than from new work....
Click to expand...


Getty make **** loads, it seems to be part of their business model.
All photographers should be paid their worth but for a 3rd party to manage that photographers output on the basis that it will be stolen rather than sold, and then to charge a disproportionate "legal" fee, stinks like monkey trump.
 
Musicman said:
I'm not aware that the NT actually claim copyright of all photographs taken on their premises. They might have you under breach of contract though - i.e. their terms and conditions of entry.
Click to expand...

From the NT website;

The National Trust does not permit photography or filming at its properties for commercial use or for reproduction in any form. Images taken at NT properties may not be submitted to photo libraries, agencies or on-line providers or provided directly to image buyers. Requests for access for commercial photography or filming should be directed to the Broadcast Media Liaison Officer (020 7799 4547) in the first instance..
 
joxby said:
Getty make **** loads, it seems to be part of their business model.
All photographers should be paid their worth but for a 3rd party to manage that photographers output on the basis that it will be stolen rather than sold, and then to charge a disproportionate "legal" fee, stinks like monkey trump.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I hope they don't charge the photographers with 'legal fee' to chase up the baddies
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top