Faceboook, unauthorised use of my images - by Dublin Gallery of Photography

sineadw

Jackobyte wrote: »

smash wrote: »

For people that don't do it, it's an idea to look at your flickr stats every now and then to check your referrals. Of course it's only useful if they hotlink.

Sorry for the OT chat but...

How exactly do you go about this? I've only stated using Flickr recently. Also, does pix.ie have such a service? I have most of my stuff up on pix.

I think you need a pro account to access stats. You just click through and it's all there. There's also a Big Huge Labs thingey that you can use if you don't have pro. Off the top of my head, it's called Flickr DNA.

smash

Paulw wrote: »

And that's an excuse?????

No matter who they hire to do the job, ultimately, they are responsible.

I never said it's a good excuse. I'm still trying to figure out myself how they thought they'd get away with it.

Jackobyte wrote: »

How exactly do you go about this? I've only stated using Flickr recently. Also, does pix.ie have such a service? I have most of my stuff up on pix.

flickr.com/photos/*your flickr username*/stats/

jpb1974

This post by dakar perfectly sums up the risk of posting your photos on the internet -

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74151072&postcount=49

Debating right-clicks and spaceball.gif isn't going to change this in the slightest.

The more poignant point here is the supposed caliber of organizations who are stealing photos. I would expect a lot, lot more appropriate behaviour from the likes of the Department of Justice and the Dublin Gallery of Photography in this regard. These sort of organizations stealing photos is total hypocrisy when you consider what they are supposed to represent.

artyeva

did anyone else get their e-mail looking for support in the ''gallery of the year award'' in the upcoming dublin living awards? :pac::pac::pac:

EyeBlinks

artyeva wrote: »

did anyone else get their e-mail looking for support in the ''gallery of the year award'' in the upcoming dublin living awards? :pac::pac::pac:

Yep :pac::pac::pac:

artyeva

EyeBlinks wrote: »

Yep :pac::pac::pac:[/QUOTE

is there a catagory for 'most unfortunate method of highlighting copyright laws to photographers'?

artyeva

posted on the facebook album...

Statement from Tanya Kiang, Director, Gallery of Photography:
The Gallery of Photography wishes to unreservedly apologise for unintentionally including three copyrighted images on a recent Facebook post. This breach of copyright occurred following a failure on our part to adequately guide a series of volunteer interns who had gathered material for the post about Lomo cameras. I take full responsibility for this failure and wish to assure all concerned that it will not happen again. The images were removed immediately when we learned of the breach. They had been online for less than 18 hours. We are very sorry for any hurt caused. Once again, please accept our assurances that this will not happen again. We take the issue of image copyright very seriously and we sincerely thank those who brought our error to our attention.

yet, there are still images in that gallery that i doubt are the work of the gallery staff.

dirtyghettokid

interns, eh? ..............

mehfesto

CabanSail wrote: »

Dept of Justice not aware of Copyright Law.

Gallery of Photography stealing Photo's and breaching rights.


What's next ...... Vatican Brand Condoms (The Altar Choice)

You're saying this like it's something new. It wasn't that long ago we had a Minister of Finance without a bank account and a morbidly obese Health Minister. Not to mention a stadium that prohibited 'foreign games' hosting American Football matches.

It's what us Irish do best!

Arciphel

artyeva wrote: »

Statement from Tanya Kiang, Director, Gallery of Photography:
The Gallery of Photography wishes to unreservedly apologise for unintentionally including three copyrighted images on a recent Facebook post. This breach of copyright occurred following a failure on our part to adequately guide a series of volunteer interns who had gathered material for the post about Lomo cameras. I take full responsibility for this failure and wish to assure all concerned that it will not happen again. The images were removed immediately when we learned of the breach. They had been online for less than 18 hours. We are very sorry for any hurt caused. Once again, please accept our assurances that this will not happen again. We take the issue of image copyright very seriously and we sincerely thank those who brought our error to our attention.

artyeva

at least they're not blaming it on the boogie...

[gets coat]

Opinicus

CabanSail wrote: »

Dept of Justice not aware of Copyright Law.

Gallery of Photography stealing Photo's and breaching rights.


What's next ...... Vatican Brand Condoms (The Altar Choice)

On Topic: This is fairly lulzy. Of all the organisations they really should know better. Laziness has a lot to account for.

PCPhoto

artyeva wrote: »

posted on the facebook album...

Statement from Tanya Kiang, Director, Gallery of Photography:
The Gallery of Photography wishes to unreservedly apologise for unintentionally including three copyrighted images on a recent Facebook post. This breach of copyright occurred following a failure on our part to adequately guide a series of volunteer interns who had gathered material for the post about Lomo cameras. I take full responsibility for this failure and wish to assure all concerned that it will not happen again. The images were removed immediately when we learned of the breach. They had been online for less than 18 hours. We are very sorry for any hurt caused. Once again, please accept our assurances that this will not happen again. We take the issue of image copyright very seriously and we sincerely thank those who brought our error to our attention.

yet, there are still images in that gallery that i doubt are the work of the gallery staff.

Volunteer interns .... who is responsible for the volunteer interns - who selects them, who manages them .... the Gallery of Photography !!

no excuses - one of the main problems with society is our amazing ability to push the blame around and never accept responsibility - simply put your hand in the air say...yup, it was my fault .....sorry ! How can I make it up to you ? problem solved and we can all move on.

by simply blaming "Volunteer interns" they are saying we did an illegal thing but you cant prove which one of us did it so naaah naah nee naah naah.

EDIT: Its a bit strange that there is no information about "Gallery of photography Internships in Dublin, Ireland" ..... yes I did search...several searches - I wonder could the Gallery of Photography give any links to advertisements where some of these "volunteer interns" were recruited.

AnCatDubh

PCPhoto wrote: »

Volunteer interns .... who is responsible for the volunteer interns - who selects them, who manages them .... the Gallery of Photography !!

no excuses - one of the main problems with society is our amazing ability to push the blame around and never accept responsibility - simply put your hand in the air say...yup, it was my fault .....sorry ! How can I make it up to you ? problem solved and we can all move on.

by simply blaming "Volunteer interns" they are saying we did an illegal thing but you cant prove which one of us did it so naaah naah nee naah naah.

em.... but......

Statement from Tanya Kiang, Director, Gallery of Photography:
The Gallery of Photography wishes to unreservedly apologise for unintentionally including three copyrighted images on a recent Facebook post. This breach of copyright occurred following a failure on our part to adequately guide a series of volunteer interns who had gathered material for the post about Lomo cameras. I take full responsibility for this failure and wish to assure all concerned that it will not happen again. The images were removed immediately when we learned of the breach. They had been online for less than 18 hours. We are very sorry for any hurt caused. Once again, please accept our assurances that this will not happen again. We take the issue of image copyright very seriously and we sincerely thank those who brought our error to our attention.

no?

sineadw

And they *do* have interns there.. Not excusing anything. Just sayin' like

sheesh

heres an idea, lets get some interns and tell them they are moving pictures from the gallery of photography, wait outside with a van sending the interns in to get the pictures.

then when our interns get caught stealing the pictures from the gallery of photography apologise for the hurt caused and blame the interns.

sineadw

sheesh wrote: »

heres an idea, lets get some interns and tell them they are moving pictures from the gallery of photography, wait outside with a van sending the interns in to get the pictures.

then when our interns get caught stealing the pictures from the gallery of photography apologise for the hurt caused and blame the interns.

That implies the GOP planned this. Which isn't reasonable to be honest. They should ABSOLUTELY have trained the interns properly in copyright, and supervised the posts, and they also *really* shouldn't have tried to shrug the whoke thing off and say that BS about credit, but to say that there was some sort of grand plan of theft from the top when there's no proof of anything of the sort is a little unfair i think.

Hopefully the OP will be paid, and the whole horrible mess won't happen again. I don't see the point in a witch hunt though.

DesperateDan

argosy2006 wrote: »

Most people love to have their Photos shown,
Nag nag nag ,
Geez

I think it depends on the level of professionalism, if I took a picture of something and they used it without my permission I would be happy and show off to my mates . The OP must be some kind of professional photographer as he seems genuinely irritated by it, right?
Tbh though, its just a small office for a council run arts project that messed up, it's not like microsoft or apple put it all over their tv ads and you lost thousands in potential revenue. Copyright is law, but there should be room for a degree of common sense :cool:, they sorted it out right away and apologised and such

jpb1974

DesperateDan wrote: »

I think it depends on the level of professionalism, if I took a picture of something and they used it without my permission I would be happy and show off to my mates . The OP must be some kind of professional photographer as he seems genuinely irritated by it, right?
Tbh though, its just a small office for a council run arts project that messed up, it's not like microsoft or apple put it all over their tv ads and you lost thousands in potential revenue. Copyright is law, but there should be room for a degree of common sense :cool:, they sorted it out right away and apologised and such

Urghhh...<face palm>

The OP must be some kind of professional photographer as he seems genuinely irritated by it, right?

Why on Earth would that make the slightest bit of difference?

Copyright is law, but there should be room for a degree of common sense

You could feck a pair of knickers in Penneys and just agree to put them back if you got caught. It promotes the idea that it's OK to try and not to worry if you get caught.

But there is a degree of common sense here... the OP has sent in an invoice for €200... the funds will be donated to charity once the OP is paid.

Chances are that if they had just made the effort to ask for permission in the first place they probably would have been give the usage rights for free/a pat on the back/something in return.

sineadw

DesperateDan wrote: »

Copyright is law, but there should be room for a degree of common sense :cool:, they sorted it out right away and apologised and such

Hmm.. but the law is the law. You don't kind of steal something. I would have been just as annoyed as the OP, more on point of principal than loss of revenue (I don't produce stock images). This isn't some small arts office, it's the Gallery of Photography. They're supposed to champion photographers' rights. That's fundamental to the issue here.

DaireQuinlan

DesperateDan wrote: »

I think it depends on the level of professionalism, if I took a picture of something and they used it without my permission I would be happy and show off to my mates .

Excellent ! (goes and downloads DesperateDans entire photo stream so I can use the shots to sell crappy overpriced cameras)

Seriously though, it has -nothing- to do with the 'level of professionalism' of the photographer. It's wrong, full stop, and it's entirely the photographer's perogative to get pissed about it and demand compensation for its use. In this case it's all the MORE galling that it's a place that should have known better AND to add insult to injury they were using the shots as part of a commercial campaign. Even if I were favoourably disposed to the GOP there's no way I'd let them get away with using my shots for free to sell LOMO crap.

Hugh_C

I've had pretty much this exact problem except it was the University of Hawaii's Music School that nicked one of my violin images from Flickr which they claimed they found through a Google search. They also claimed they had no knowledge of who owned the copyright etc etc. Not only did they nick it, they also edited it.

I entered into an exchange of emails which pretty much went nowhere and my invoice has never and probably will never be paid. All that really happened was that I got more p1ssed off and exasperated. And to be honest, life is too short to follow up this theft. There's more satisfaction in naming and shaming.

There is a plugin for firefox imaginatively called "who stole my pictures" which works really well, but be warned that you might just end up getting really angry.

Kenny Logins

Hugh_C wrote: »

I've had pretty much this exact problem except it was the University of Hawaii's Music School that nicked one of my violin images from Flickr which they claimed they found through a Google search. They also claimed they had no knowledge of who owned the copyright etc etc. Not only did they nick it, they also edited it.

I entered into an exchange of emails which pretty much went nowhere and my invoice has never and probably will never be paid. All that really happened was that I got more p1ssed off and exasperated. And to be honest, life is too short to follow up this theft. There's more satisfaction in naming and shaming.

There is a plugin for firefox imaginatively called "who stole my pictures" which works really well, but be warned that you might just end up getting really angry.

The University of Hawaii's Music School stole your images?

(hello Google :pac:)

dirtyghettokid

if your images are on flickr, i would never accept an excuse of "i found it on google"
when you find a flickr image on google (i just tested it there) it automatically redirects to the flickr page.

try it yourself

type in TU5J4 into google images. the first image that comes up is an engine in a black 106 gti, and it's my photo hosted on flickr. click on it - it will auto redirect to flickr - there's no way of saving it from google itself. of course you can then save it from flickr... but my point is, never swallow the "i got it from google" excuse (not saying you guys would anyway)

smash

Hugh_C wrote: »

There is a plugin for firefox imaginatively called "who stole my pictures" which works really well, but be warned that you might just end up getting really angry.

I have a good chrome extension too, and an exif viewer.

Arciphel

DesperateDan wrote: »

If I took a picture of something and they used it without my permission I would be happy and show off to my mates

Very apt username then...

Arciphel

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Even if I were favoourably disposed to the GOP there's no way I'd let them get away with using my shots for free to sell LOMO crap.

Oooh you're going to upset all the film hipsters now! :pac::pac::pac:

DaireQuinlan

Arciphel wrote: »

Oooh you're going to upset all the film hipsters now! :pac::pac::pac:

Woops, sorry, you're right, I meant to say "there's no way I'd let them get away with using my shots for free to persuade hipsters to pay their hipster tax for overpriced LOMO crap"

Kintarō Hattori

Hugh_C wrote: »

There is a plugin for firefox imaginatively called "who stole my pictures" which works really well, but be warned that you might just end up getting really angry.

I downloaded that plugin for Firefox and sure enough found some of my images on various websites. I'll do a much more thorough search in the future. Thanks for the link to the plugin Hugh.

FoxT

artyeva wrote: »

there's other images still up in that album that were sequestered from flickr sent to them on the back of unicorns but the owners of the images don't live in ireland....


...just sayin'.

That is interesting. I suggest you contact those flickr users & alert them to the breach of their copyright. I know nothing of the law in this area, but some of them are bound to be in a jurisdiction where they have a legal copyright. Even if they are not, they have a (in laymans terms) a 'moral' copyright...

A half-dozen emails from around the globe would progress things along nicely, I'd say.... Best of luck with it.

Openxcell

Arciphel wrote: »

Got a tip off from a good friend

Gallery of Photography in Temple Bar nicked one of my images from flickr to advertise the fact that they have Blackbird Fly cameras in stock.

My image - http://www.flickr.com/photos/arciphel/4877176776/in/photostream/

Their facebook page - https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150457341149989&set=a.10150122124464989.330107.95856624988&type=1&permPage=1

This really takes the biscuit as far as I am concerned, not like they could claim ignorance of copyright law on photographs now is it? I have filled out a DMCA request to have it taken down.

Hi Arciphel,
Here sharing both links are not working please check it.

rain on

Openxcell wrote: »

Hi Arciphel,
Here sharing both links are not working please check it.

Flickr is down and that Facebook page was taken down.

mrboswell

artyeva wrote: »

posted on the facebook album...

Statement from Tanya Kiang, Director, Gallery of Photography:
The Gallery of Photography wishes to unreservedly apologise for unintentionally including three copyrighted images on a recent Facebook post. This breach of copyright occurred following a failure on our part to adequately guide a series of volunteer interns who had gathered material for the post about Lomo cameras. I take full responsibility for this failure and wish to assure all concerned that it will not happen again. The images were removed immediately when we learned of the breach. They had been online for less than 18 hours. We are very sorry for any hurt caused. Once again, please accept our assurances that this will not happen again. We take the issue of image copyright very seriously and we sincerely thank those who brought our error to our attention.

yet, there are still images in that gallery that i doubt are the work of the gallery staff.

So the interns are going to have a whip around and pay the invoice out of their own pockets, are they?

Please give that place a new name. Maybe the "gallery of possibly stolen photography"?

Arciphel

The entire photo gallery in question is gone now from the Gallery of Photography webpage, as is all the discussion about it. Just as well I took a few image captures of it while it was still up ;-)

Arciphel

Anyone who has an interest, I expect some communication tomorrow as they should have gotten my invoice then, so I will keep ye all posted. As I said, I don't want any money out of this, anything I receive will be going to charity (Barnardos).

EyeBlinks

sineadw wrote: »

I don't see the point in a witch hunt though.

I agreed 100% with that.

A mistake had been made, a fullsome apology offered and responsibility taken. A future guarantee given and there for everyone to see. It remained for Archipel to resolve his issue privately and we all move on.

But ...

Artyeva mentions the other photos, still promoting the product for sale and how they were procured and heh presto the whole thing is deleted.

The GOP is coming out of this far from smelling of roses methinks!

Arciphel

They didn't apologise, they said that they "like to credit all photographers" as if it was a courtesy thing.

Nobody from there has contacted me either, they have my details.

The fact that the images were only up 18 hours is immaterial, they would have been up there 18 years save for the fact that they were caught.

I want them to give the money they should be giving me to charity, but that doesn't change the fact that they are dead in the wrong and if they don't sort this out to my satisfaction I will go the legal route, no problem.

<SNIP>Lionel Hutz image</SNIP>

EyeBlinks

They did apologise ...

"The Gallery of Photography wishes to unreservedly apologise"

Of course what's happened, or not in your case, since that has made that apology seem rather hollow!

challengemaster

EyeBlinks wrote: »

They did apologise ...

"The Gallery of Photography wishes to unreservedly apologise"

Of course what's happened, or not in your case, since that has made that apology seem rather hollow!

An apology is meaningless and teaches them nothing tbh. Having to fork out money means they won't do it again too quickly.

sarkozy

This whole thing has been blown out of proportion. Jeez. Calm down guys. And you: copyright your photos on Flickr if you don't want them misused.

Paulw

sarkozy wrote: »

And you: copyright your photos on Flickr if you don't want them misused.

His images were marked as copyright. That's the point of the whole thing. :rolleyes:

AnCatDubh

challengemaster wrote: »

An apology is meaningless and teaches them nothing tbh.

I don't agree. It is significance of gigantic proportions in this day and age and in this society which we live for someone to say "I was wrong", to understand what they have done or are responsible for and to say "I am sorry" when it is pointed out to them the error of a particular situation and where they have wronged someone.

I don't believe for a minute that the Gallery of Photography, an institution who above all others should be aware of the implication of permissions to use images, would in any way condone image theft or set out to tort an individuals legitimate rights to their images. At best guess from what is in the public domain with regards to the matter, a terrible mistake/error/f*** up was made - that was before whatever images were published. The error was in not giving a basic understanding or induction to the individuals working for them. Its stupid, makes the Gallery of Photography look like a bunch of amateurs not aware of what they are doing and gives little confidence in their organisation to become a beacon of photography in this country. I don't know much about the organisation but I do note that they have acknowledged the problem by means of a statement from the chief in charge who has personally accepted responsibility for the episode.

You can't teach a corporate entity (of any kind) anything. Is is inanimate. It consists of individuals thoughts and actions of a moment in time - perhaps framed within a strategic outlook driven by stakeholders and/or shareholders. Hitting them with forking out money wont teach the individuals who work for/with them anything. Does it focus their actions? Perhaps. But when the next individual begins to work for them unless they have sorted this basic error of not inducting them appropriately then everyone is back at square one. I understand from the statements of the chief in charge that the induction matter will be resolved. To be honest it is of immense and of greater importance overall that this is done than an invoice be paid (accepted perhaps not from the point of view of the image owners, but certainly for the greater photographic community of which we all are a part).

If redress is being sought and the form of redress is an invoice being paid then that is appropriate. They should pay out a reasonable sum agreed between both parties and if agreement not reached, they put themselves and the owner of the images in a position where legal redress may be required. If this, then so be it. It would question the constitution of the organisation and the genuine nature of any responsibility being accepted.

If it were an organisation which refused to admit their error, which had a history of doing this (such as media outlets which we hear about time and time again), which tried to cover it up, which ignored the communitys voice, who put themselves beyond reach, who dismissed a single voice in the face of their corporate might, then yes the only form of redress in that situation may be monatery such that whomever their stakeholders/shareholders are, will sit up, take note, and take appropriate action against the entities running the organisation.

I think there is a world of difference from what i've read of the matter thus far in the approach of the Gallery of Photography in this particular case.

I suspect that it may be an unfortunate consequence of the redress scenario that the core message of them getting their freaking act in order and don't do stupid things, will be confused with the message that this has cost us an invoice. That said, if there is a financial scenario due which the owner of the image wishes to pursue then it is of course their right to pursue.

jpb1974

I don't agree. It is significance of gigantic proportions in this day and age and in this society which we live for someone to say "I was wrong", to understand what they have done or are responsible for and to say "I am sorry" when it is pointed out to them the error of a particular situation and where they have wronged someone.

I don't believe for a minute that the Gallery of Photography, an institution who above all others should be aware of the implication of permissions to use images, would in any way condone image theft or set out to tort an individuals legitimate rights to their images. At best guess from what is in the public domain with regards to the matter, a terrible mistake/error/f*** up was made - that was before whatever images were published. The error was in not giving a basic understanding or induction to the individuals working for them. Its stupid, makes the Gallery of Photography look like a bunch of amateurs not aware of what they are doing and gives little confidence in their organisation to become a beacon of photography in this country. I don't know much about the organisation but I do note that they have acknowledged the problem by means of a statement from the chief in charge who has personally accepted responsibility for the episode.

You can't teach a corporate entity (of any kind) anything. Is is inanimate. It consists of individuals thoughts and actions of a moment in time - perhaps framed within a strategic outlook driven by stakeholders and/or shareholders. Hitting them with forking out money wont teach the individuals who work for/with them anything. Does it focus their actions? Perhaps. But when the next individual begins to work for them unless they have sorted this basic error of not inducting them appropriately then everyone is back at square one. I understand from the statements of the chief in charge that the induction matter will be resolved. To be honest it is of immense and of greater importance overall that this is done than an invoice be paid (accepted perhaps not from the point of view of the image owners, but certainly for the greater photographic community of which we all are a part).

If redress is being sought and the form of redress is an invoice being paid then that is appropriate. They should pay out a reasonable sum agreed between both parties and if agreement not reached, they put themselves and the owner of the images in a position where legal redress may be required. If this, then so be it. It would question the constitution of the organisation and the genuine nature of any responsibility being accepted.

If it were an organisation which refused to admit their error, which had a history of doing this (such as media outlets which we hear about time and time again), which tried to cover it up, which ignored the communitys voice, who put themselves beyond reach, who dismissed a single voice in the face of their corporate might, then yes the only form of redress in that situation may be monatery such that whomever their stakeholders/shareholders are, will sit up, take note, and take appropriate action against the entities running the organisation.

I think there is a world of difference from what i've read of the matter thus far in the approach of the Gallery of Photography in this particular case.

I suspect that it may be an unfortunate consequence of the redress scenario that the core message of them getting their freaking act in order and don't do stupid things, will be confused with the message that this has cost us an invoice. That said, if there is a financial scenario due which the owner of the image wishes to pursue then it is of course their right to pursue.

So to summarize -

They fúcked up, they need to show Arci the money and everyone else needs to get over it.

Arciphel

Great post ^ thanks for writing it. I am not looking for money, as I said several times it's going to charity. My intentions are not to make money from this. But I disagree in that making them pay out will, I think, make them more likely to address the issue.

jpb1974

No probs Arci.. you're welcome

Arciphel

LOLZ - chancer.

Arciphel

sarkozy wrote: »

This whole thing has been blown out of proportion. Jeez. Calm down guys. And you: copyright your photos on Flickr if you don't want them misused.

Image by א (Aleph), http://commons.wikimedia.org

DaireQuinlan

Arciphel wrote: »

The quoted photo is, I believe, copyright Reuters

Eirebear

Wow. Just wow.

What hope do photographers have when the very people who claim to protect and promote the rights of photographers treat them in this way?

I absolutely love the fact that people are trying to make excuses for them, **** me - you work for the national gallery of PHOTOGRAPHY, if you think that simply stealing images from Flickr is acceptable then you truly are in the wrong job.

Arciphel

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

The quoted photo is, I believe, copyright Reuters

Touche!