Illegal image use

dubl

Did anyone take to court for the illegal image use? I came across in Internet with my image that been used by one of Irish event websites ( no credit given or prior written permission obtained).
Image cropped to a web designer liking. I asked them kindly to remove image and after short while emailed my invoice. It's still unpaid.

PCPhoto

it usually doesn't get to court - as the offenders have no legal defence and offer to settle out of court.

if you want the image removed you may have to goto a solicitor and get them to write a letter demanding removal of the image and payment for usage and legal fees for sending solicitors letter.

Depending on the solicitor you could be paying approx €200 for writing the letter on your behalf. (but you'll get that back from the other side - assuming they'll pay up)

Personally I would advise against naming and shaming on a public forum. (just incase people ask)

basically you have already tried the polite route - now it comes down to either letting it go or giving them a chance..... keep all correspondence via email/letter (telephone calls are usually forgotten when it comes to court cases)

PS. you must be 100% certain that its your image.

Paulw

I'm having a somewhat similar issue, but my image was published in a book without my permission.

I have only started the process of dealing with the publisher about it, but I'll be looking for payment.

Hopefully it will be a quick settle.

magicbastarder

where did they source the image?

PCPhoto

Paulw wrote: »

I'm having a somewhat similar issue, but my image was published in a book without my permission.

I have only started the process of dealing with the publisher about it, but I'll be looking for payment.

Hopefully it will be a quick settle.

Book prices are significantly different from Website/Editorial images...... you can pluck a price out of the air and they will pay it or make them reprint the book without your image.

Fair play to you for finding it.

AnCatDubh

PCPhoto wrote: »

Fair play to you for finding it.

+1, I'm curious as to how you found it. Presumably the publishers thought "sure, it'll never be cop'd"

linearcutter

I have also had personal experience of something like this - posted here a while back about it. Still awaiting a response from the offending party, but I have given them 30 days to respond so they still have some time.

Seeing so many similar stories here, it's a real mark of how this digital revolution has left artists open to theft of this nature.

I think for me, the excitement of some positive feedback from peers, or some random people enjoying my blog, is now overshadowed by the possibility of someone with a dodgy moral compass taking advantage of my work. I'm actually considering taking my blog off-line, and turning my nose up at a web presence altogether.

eas

linearcutter wrote: »

Seeing so many similar stories here, it's a real mark of how this digital revolution has left artists open to theft of this nature.

I've always been curious and maybe slighty skeptical....not making any acusations or assumptions towards anyone...but I'd love to know how many people who ask about this particular situation have paid for the software used to edit the images that are being stolen from them?

I know two wrongs don't make right, but I know of wedding photographers who hit the roof when it comes to the subject of someone stealing their images, but also don't think twice about using the latest Coldplay track in their DVD presentations to their clients.

Like I said, not making any accusations..but I think there's a good few photographers who arn't really playing by the rules either.

PCPhoto

Valid point Eas !!

I can honestly say that I don't download movies, or music or programs, everything I have purchased is legit (my Photoshop cost me €650 and that was with a discount)

I don't regularly post images online because I don't trust the security (I recently linked my website and told people they can take images if they want).

In an ideal world photographers would have a system which would protect their images online - and those hosting would be the ones responsible for catching and prosecuting.

Paulw

eas wrote: »

I've always been curious and maybe slighty skeptical....not making any acusations or assumptions towards anyone...but I'd love to know how many people who ask about this particular situation have paid for the software used to edit the images that are being stolen from them?

For my photos I use Photo Mechanic on-site (crop/caption, etc) and then Adobe Lightroom (image processing/editing). Both are fully licensed. I also have a licensed copy of PaintShopPro, should I need any fine editing, but I can't remember last when I even opened it.

In relation to my issue, I've just spoken to the publisher. They're now going to verify the source of their images and confirm that the image used is actually mine, and they will then come back to me.

dubl

magicbastarder wrote: »

where did they source the image?

From my flickr account.

Back in 2009 when I uploaded it, flickr had small size image view for "all rights reserved" images.
They changed this in 2010 I think. With the right mouse click visitor now able to see large image. I have my watermark in a middle of the image.

So people who used this image did a screenshot & cropped it a certain way to remove watermark.

Paulw

dubl wrote: »

From my flickr account.

Ouch.

Hopefully you will get it sorted quickly.

AnCatDubh

dubl wrote: »

From my flickr account. ........
So people who used this image did a screenshot & cropped it a certain way to remove watermark.

That's yeuch alright.

I did have an image lifted off my personal web page which had a distinct "Copyright" notice below the image and published in the papers - about a 1/2 a page in size too - it was nice to see but no so much as an enquiry as to *could* they use it. The image wasn't published anywhere else.

And subsequently to have an image lifted from Wiki-commons (allowable and intended) but failure to give attribution as was indicated on the image and licenced under CC - by the same newspaper.

I wasn't surprised when I saw the same group of newspaper publishers named here on boards a little while back for the same thing. It must be 'accepted' behaviour within the organisation in question.

Also, another image lifted from wiki by an online publication with zero attribution. To be fair, that organisation was most embarrassed and resolved attribution within a few minutes of making contact and I was fine about it too. I updated the attribution thereafter and left zero ambiguity. Incidentially I find (in what little experience I have) foreign media sources (online publications) will do the right thing and attribute an image lifted from wiki-commons.

/end of my war stories.

challengemaster

AnCatDubh wrote: »

That's yeuch alright.

I did have an image lifted off my personal web page which had a distinct "Copyright" notice below the image and published in the papers - about a 1/2 a page in size too - it was nice to see but no so much as an enquiry as to *could* they use it. The image wasn't published anywhere else.

Hope you sent them a nice big invoice for it!

if a web designer is building a site and wants a picture of something often the first thing they will do is a google image search and take a photo from there.

Just something to be aware of, a watermark is really necessary if you dont want your photos used like that

PCPhoto

sometimes a watermark doesn't stop people .... people consider an image online to be free and information needs to be put out to inform people that ALL images are copyright of the person who took the image, using the image without consent is copyright theft.... this includes using the image on a blog or website.

Personally I think online images should pay more than newspaper/magazine rates (they are accessed by a lot more people globally)

eas

Deleted User wrote: »

if a web designer is building a site and wants a picture of something often the first thing they will do is a google image search and take a photo from there.

Just something to be aware of, a watermark is really necessary if you dont want your photos used like that

Don't want this to go off topic, but only lazy and unprofessional web designers do that.

A good web designer may use photos harvested from the internet for early mock ups, but they would be clearly marked as place holder or sample imagery if the client was ever to see them. Most of the time these shots come from mircrostock sites rather than flickr accounts. I've worked with studios where if stolen imagery ended up on a clients website someone would likely get the sack.