Photos watermarked

Freddie59

I spotted three of my photos being used on a website and watermarked an that site with the website address. I've asked them to remove them without any luck. It is an Irish website and I am astounded that they have the brass neck to do this.

The photos themselves aren't great (taken with a bridge camera several years ago) but that isn't the point. All I want them to do is to remove the watermark. I'm being asked if I have 'proof of copyright'. I've got the bloody originals on my hard drive!:mad:

Do I have any recourse here?

Abelloid

Name and shame.

squareballoon

wow, that's some cheek!! How did they get the photos? A screen grab?

Freddie59

squareballoon wrote: »

wow, that's some cheek!! How did they get the photos? A screen grab?

Panoramio.

Paulw

What picts? Show us yours, and a link to yours on their site.

Disgraceful conduct. :eek:

samhail

Might be some task to Watermark all your existing photos for future protection.
i agree - name and shame.

Plazaman

Would it be an idea to send one of your originals (in as high a res as possible) to them to view. The fact that you don't have their watermark on it and there is no signs of photoshopping (v difficult to remove a watermark without trace) wouldn't that prove you have the original ?

Of course the thieving bastárds may rob the better res photo on you but thems the risks.

samhail

Post up your Original photo (at a high res hopefully) with the watermark that you put on it "when you took the photo".
and tell them you are impressed with their photoshopping skills are removing your watermark to add their own.

smelltheglove

Name and shame and then a big fat invoice with an extra large percentage charge for unauthorised use and editing (i.e. their watermark) 14 days to pay or legal action!

Bet they will take it down quicksmart then.

AnCatDubh

you do have legal recourse... as always with these things either they will capitulate early or it could be tortuous.

do you mind me enquiring if it is a commercial site or a personal/community site? (irrespective of the answer to this, your copyright appears to be violated)

Abelloid

Plazaman wrote: »

Would it be an idea to send one of your originals (in as high a res as possible) to them to view. The fact that you don't have their watermark on it and there is no signs of photoshopping (v difficult to remove a watermark without trace) wouldn't that prove you have the original ?

Of course the thieving bastárds may rob the better res photo on you but thems the risks.

Give them the hi-res original?

PCPhoto

send them a solicitors letter demanding removal and payment (for solicitors letter and illegal usage of image)

if they refuse to pay - take them to court.

"copyright theft is theft" - is the slogan of INFACT - Irish National Federation Against Copyright Theft (as seen on many DVD's/in Cinemas)

it may cost you some money - but if you are willing to do it, I can guarantee you some publicity if it comes to court.

EDIT- in the past I would have offered to fund the legal action but my solicitor has asked me to stop as its costing me too much.

challengemaster

Freddie59 wrote: »

I spotted three of my photos being used on a website and watermarked an that site with the website address. I've asked them to remove them without any luck. It is an Irish website and I am astounded that they have the brass neck to do this.

The photos themselves aren't great (taken with a bridge camera several years ago) but that isn't the point. All I want them to do is to remove the watermark. I'm being asked if I have 'proof of copyright'. I've got the bloody originals on my hard drive!:mad:

Do I have any recourse here?

You have plenty of recourse.

Plazaman wrote: »

Would it be an idea to send one of your originals (in as high a res as possible) to them to view. The fact that you don't have their watermark on it and there is no signs of photoshopping (v difficult to remove a watermark without trace) wouldn't that prove you have the original ?

Of course the thieving bastárds may rob the better res photo on you but thems the risks.

That's just stupid, don't even think about sending them a high-res photo, because then THEY have the high-res.... leaving you high&dry /facepalm

smelltheglove wrote: »

Name and shame and then a big fat invoice with an extra large percentage charge for unauthorised use and editing (i.e. their watermark) 14 days to pay or legal action!

Bet they will take it down quicksmart then.

Go to a solicitor before doing this, and have them send an official letter with the invoice stating that if they do not remove the photos and pay the invoice, they will face legal action. (as PCPhoto has said below) Make sure to charge a reasonable yet high amount, and include a charge for unauthorised usage too.

PCPhoto wrote: »

send them a solicitors letter demanding removal and payment (for solicitors letter and illegal usage of image)

if they refuse to pay - take them to court.

"copyright theft is theft" - is the slogan of INFACT - Irish National Federation Against Copyright Theft (as seen on many DVD's/in Cinemas)

it may cost you some money - but if you are willing to do it, I can guarantee you some publicity if it comes to court.

EDIT- in the past I would have offered to fund the legal action but my solicitor has asked me to stop as its costing me too much.

As he says, definately take them to court if they refuse.

mdebets

Freddie59 wrote: »

Panoramio.

They took them from your Panoramio account?

Did they actually made copies or did they use the Panoramio API?

magicbastarder

challengemaster wrote: »

That's just stupid, don't even think about sending them a high-res photo, because then THEY have the high-res.... leaving you high&dry /facepalm

at best, send a small thin strip from the original, proving you are the owner, but a strip too thin to use for any other purpose.

showit

Plazaman wrote: »

Would it be an idea to send one of your originals (in as high a res as possible) to them to view. The fact that you don't have their watermark on it and there is no signs of photoshopping (v difficult to remove a watermark without trace) wouldn't that prove you have the original ?

Of course the thieving bastárds may rob the better res photo on you but thems the risks.

Do Not give them any high res image,

smelltheglove

I'm dying to find out what the site is, I have seen some of mine on other peoples facebook but generally they have my watermark on them anyway.

Dont leave it alone though whatever you do, Pc has posted and Im sure would be a great help to you if you required any advice or info. Even start by just enquiring how much a solicitors letter will cost you.

Freddie59

smelltheglove wrote: »

I'm dying to find out what the site is, I have seen some of mine on other peoples facebook but generally they have my watermark on them anyway.

Dont leave it alone though whatever you do, Pc has posted and Im sure would be a great help to you if you required any advice or info. Even start by just enquiring how much a solicitors letter will cost you.

Thanks Rachel. And thanks to everyone else who took the time to reply. I'm only in from work, thus the delay in replying. I don't want to get into a whole legal thing, as they are just, essentially, slightly poor snapshots. But it's maddening to see them watermarked. They are slightly cropped, but there are details within the photos which make them unmistakeable (people, vehicles, etc).

I don't want to reveal the site, as it is a voluntary one, and I am hoping they will have the common courtesy to remove the watermark.

Freddie59

mdebets wrote: »

They took them from your Panoramio account?

Did they actually made copies or did they use the Panoramio API?

I really don't know. But I didn't give them to anyone, so it would appear to be the only source.

challengemaster

Freddie59 wrote: »

I don't want to get into a whole legal thing, as they are just, essentially, slightly poor snapshots.

That doesn't really matter. They could be taken on an iPhone - they're still your photos and copyright still applies. If they don't get the message they can't take photos from wherever they like now, they'll do it again.

Freddie59

Update: I've had communication with the site and they are treating very seriously, citing that a third party may have supplied the photos. They seem very genuine, so I'll let you know how it goes.

EarlERizer

Freddie59 wrote: »

Update: I've had communication with the site and they are treating very seriously, citing that a third party may have supplied the photos. They seem very genuine, so I'll let you know how it goes.

Would that give them a right to use their watermark? , i'm really curious to see how this pans out for you,this has spooked me,i'm a (very) amateur photographer ,it's purely a hobby but reading this thread is giving me reservations about every uploading my pics to any website.

Like another poster said,if it doesnt stop with this how many others will suffer the same faith.

If it turns out that a 3rd party gave them 'permission' there is still the case of copyright theft,and they will have a case for deception by the 3rd party leading to the case of copyright infringment on their part.

Anyway,Sorry to hear of your troubles & I hope you get the right outcome.

challengemaster

If a third party passed on or even worse, sold your photos to them.... I suggest you rethink legal action tbh.

AnCatDubh

Freddie59 wrote: »

Update: I've had communication with the site and they are treating very seriously, citing that a third party may have supplied the photos. They seem very genuine, so I'll let you know how it goes.

Third party won't absolve them of responsibility.

If you are interested in pursuing the matter, I have the text which Getty use when they find an image of theirs being used without permission. If interested, drop me a pm with your email and i'll forward to you.

Getty take the approach - "I don't give a damn how it got there, it is there, and as owner of the site/web presence you are responsible. And by the way the licence fee for unauthorised usage is €490 and you must take down the image as well as paying the unauthorised usage fee. You have 21 days to comply."

They play rough.

If it was Getty that the offending site were dealing with, they would be getting the above treatment from the Getty legal people.

Getty = big, You as an individual = small (comparatively), your rights are actually equal. Approach is different.

CabanSail

It would be worth checking the EXIF data too. It often records the Type & Serial # of the camera. Even if you don't have the camera any more you're sure to have plenty of other images taken with that same EXIF.

Freddie59

CabanSail wrote: »

It would be worth checking the EXIF data too. It often records the Type & Serial # of the camera. Even if you don't have the camera any more you're sure to have plenty of other images taken with that same EXIF.

Thanks CS. I have the originals on my HD (complete with Exif data) and my daughter has the camera.

The J Stands for Jay

CabanSail wrote: »

It would be worth checking the EXIF data too. It often records the Type & Serial # of the camera. Even if you don't have the camera any more you're sure to have plenty of other images taken with that same EXIF.

How would a person go about checking the EXIF data on a picture on a website?

Kenny Logins

McGaggs wrote: »

How would a person go about checking the EXIF data on a picture on a website?

I use a Chrome extension, just hover over any jpeg and the EXIF data is displayed along the top. I'm sure other browsers have similar plugins.

CabanSail

McGaggs wrote: »

How would a person go about checking the EXIF data on a picture on a website?

They may have stripped the EXIF on the site. I was thinking of the data on the originals and see if it records the specific camera. Ownership of that camera will then almost seal the matter as far as proof of ownership.

Freddie59

An update on this. Following negotiations with the site owner, the photos have been removed. Another party had claimed the shots were theirs, and that they had the same camera. However, the shots that I had posted were all part of a set taken at the same time, but not all of which were posted to the Internet.

I was amazed to see that Panoramio allows retention of ALL original Exif data when you download a photo - so you could indeed claim it as your own. Flickr appears not to.

I have now deleted my Panoramio account (which was receiving way more views than my Flickr account).

Regards,

Freddie.

Jackobyte

Just saw this thread. It reminded me of the one with the Rugby club using someone elses images last year that dragged out for months. Whatever happened with that?

CabanSail

Jackobyte wrote: »

Just saw this thread. It reminded me of the one with the Rugby club using someone elses images last year that dragged out for months. Whatever happened with that?

That thread was deleted at the request of the OP.

PCPhoto

Freddie59 wrote: »

An update on this. Following negotiations with the site owner, the photos have been removed. Another party had claimed the shots were theirs, and that they had the same camera. However, the shots that I had posted were all part of a set taken at the same time, but not all of which were posted to the Internet.

I was amazed to see that Panoramio allows retention of ALL original Exif data when you download a photo - so you could indeed claim it as your own. Flickr appears not to.

I have now deleted my Panoramio account (which was receiving way more views than my Flickr account).

Regards,

Freddie.

I think you should tell Panoramio your reason for closing your account and find the details of the other photographer and see if they have stolen other images (and possibly send them a solicitors letter for theft of your images - it's illegal to steal someones images are try to pass them off as your own)

Jackobyte

CabanSail wrote: »

That thread was deleted at the request of the OP.

What was the result if you don't mind me asking?

Sorry for dragging this OT.

CabanSail

Jackobyte wrote: »

What was the result if you don't mind me asking?

Sorry for dragging this OT.

I am sorry but we are not at liberty to disclose that.

Freddie59

PCPhoto wrote: »

I think you should tell Panoramio your reason for closing your account and find the details of the other photographer and see if they have stolen other images (and possibly send them a solicitors letter for theft of your images - it's illegal to steal someones images are try to pass them off as your own)

I should have told Panoramio I suppose. Just glad to see the back of it now. It's a warning for anyone out there with Panoramio accounts though. Lesson learned in my case. Thanks again to everyone for the advice and help.

Freddie.

Abelloid

I don't think Panoramio is to blame, somebody stole your pics and then to add insult to injury lied to say they they took them themselves.
I would have thought (hoped) most people would admit guilt - 'found them online' and then remove them without argument... :rolleyes:

PCPhoto

JustinOval wrote: »

I don't think Panoramio is to blame, somebody stole your pics and then to add insult to injury lied to say they they took them themselves.
I would have thought (hoped) most people would admit guilt - 'found them online' and then remove them without argument... :rolleyes:

Panoramio are to blame for allowing the image to be taken in the first place ...if it was not hosted on their site it could not have been taken....they should be responsible for some part.

Abelloid

PCPhoto wrote: »

Panoramio are to blame for allowing the image to be taken in the first place ...if it was not hosted on their site it could not have been taken....they should be responsible for some part.

Sorry, but if you host your images anywhere online they are there for the taking. Panoramio didn't steal the images, nor can they prevent anyone stealing them. The blame lies with the person that took them and passed them off/sold them as their own and nobody else IMHO.

PCPhoto

JustinOval wrote: »

Sorry, but if you host your images anywhere online they are there for the taking. Panoramio didn't steal the images, nor can they prevent anyone stealing them. The blame lies with the person that took them and passed them off/sold them as their own and nobody else IMHO.

I have to disagree with that .... if someone has images online they are not "there for the taking" they are for display and the host is partially to blame if an image is taken.

I'm sure they probably cover themselves in terms and conditions of hosting agreement but they are negligent in protecting the image which they have agreed to host/store.

images are copyright of the photographer - anyone else using the image without express permission of the copyright owner is deemed copyright theft....not to blame them but to inform them that he no longer trusts them as they do not protect his images.

as regards my original comment - the OP should have informed Panoramio that his reason for closing his account was because an image was stolen and used illegally.

Abelloid

How exactly can they protect the images you choose to share online?

This looks like they take copyright infringement pretty seriously -

http://www.google.com/support/bin/request.py?product=panoramio&contact_type=lr_dmca&&hl=en

PCPhoto

there are lots of ways to protect images from copyright theft and it is best if discovered that the matter is dealt with properly - if the OP had reported the matter and let it in their hands he may not have received any payments for compensation.


Another method of stopping copyright theft of images is using image sizes not suitable for print.

use a BMP file for display purposes - meaning a screengrab is the only method and use of a watermark stops printing.
convert images for display into sections - also means a screengrab is the only method of taking the image and again a watermark assists in stopping printing of the image.

I have other methods but I'm unsure if they are working or just methods I thought of myself.