Stealing images... with a slight difference...

How would you guys approach this one?

It has me baffled, as it's a tricky situation.

Local volunteer organisation are selling calendars in an attempt to raise money to purchase something (trying to be a bit sketchy on the details intentionally).

Anyway, i know some of the people involved in the organisation to say hello to here and there, and I've happily photographed them and their gear in the past briefly (if they had anything on show or were doing something when i came across them, I'd take a photo and say hello). The voluntary organisation that the calendar benefits truly are broke, that much I know for sure.


As you may have guessed by now; yep; one of my photographs is used in the calendar.


On one hand, I'm pretty annoyed because ever since buying a camera and reading on here everyday, it's been drilled into me that copyright is a serious issues and I've always thought that if the department of justice were using my photograph, it's not something I'd take too lightly. I always pictured myself approaching the copyright thieves in a Stallone-style manner (possibly with less explosions).


The calendar features my image, as posted on boards.ie, printed larger than the 800pixels i allow my Pix.ie account to show (So it's pixelated). Had this voluntary unit actually approached me, I'd have let them use all of my images of anything relating to them. I'd have probably offered to photograph some stuff for them, just for the calendar, even.

At the same time, however, it feels fairly disrespectful to me, in my opinion, to just take my photo without asking (and makes me wonder how many of the other images may have been lifted from other photographers).


Considering the circumstances; how would you guys approach this one? Personally, I'm annoyed, but at the same time, it is a rather small scale voluntary unit, and they do mean well.



Is it a lose-lose situation for me? Keep quiet and they won't care, say anything and I'm a prick that's attacking volunteers?

(and yes, we have a copy of the calendar in my house, my Dad bought it an hour or so ago, and I just took a flick through it afterward).

de8o

I'm assuming the other pics are 'borrowed' as well. I'd contact them and let them know that it isn't right. Explain to them the legal reasons but tell them you'll let it go this time and have no interest in making money from it. At least next time they will probably do it properly. Maybe even suggest they run a competition on boards for those that want a picture to feature in their 2013 calendar

pixbyjohn

I would certainly point out that they used your photos without asking, but what I find more alarming is the fact that the printer printed large pixelated images for the calendar. Surely his/her reputation is on the line doing that also. And of course justice is not done to your photography by using low resolution images for large size prints.

pullandbang

^^
As de8o said. Tell them if they had asked for it you'd have given them the full res file for free - if they had asked.....

magicbastarder

pixbyjohn wrote: »

what I find more alarming is the fact that the printer printed large pixelated images for the calendar. Surely his/her reputation is on the line doing that also.

a hell of a lot of printers would just welcome the business and not make work for themselves.

Effects

Did the printer print it for free? How come he gets paid but you don't?

AnCatDubh

They are probably lucky that you a nice guy and empathise with their status. Plus lucky for them that you see the futility of legal redress in this particular situation.

That said, I think if you are willing to invest your time in the matter, I think the best you can hope for in terms of a win is to do some service to photographers generally through a bit of education with the organisation - let them know you aren't happy, why, and what they've done.

Deleted User wrote: »

reading on here everyday, it's been drilled into me that copyright is a serious issues

Yes, and I think, this can also be a problem (the drilling that we *myself included* subject forum members to). I know when it is done, it is generally done with the best of intentions and in response to a query from someone with regards to a prevailing situation. It's hard to articulate but I often wonder if on occasion, the individual's predicament is enriched by the advice received or if they end up just being a little more bitter as a person. This of course doesn't change the fact of anyone stealing another's image or abusing their copyright, or suggest that anyone shouldn't as is their right pursue a thief for recourse, but I do often wonder does this do anything for a broader community or just make the world a little more abrasive and a little less nice place to be. I also don't know where the balance should lie

Anyway, tomorrow I will probably be advising factually for people to pursue the individual(s) who have abused their rights :rolleyes:

pixbyjohn

"It's hard to articulate but I often wonder if on occasion, the individual's predicament is enriched by the advice received or if they end up just being a little more bitter as a person. This of course doesn't change the fact of anyone stealing another's image or abusing their copyright, or suggest that anyone shouldn't as is their right pursue a thief for recourse, but I do often wonder does this do anything for a broader community or just make the world a little more abrasive and a little less nice place to be. I also don't know where the balance should lie "
I agree wholeheartedly with you on the above

The_Snapper

Deleted User wrote: »

How would you guys approach this one?

Did you at any stage give them the inclination that you wouldn't mind? I reckon you didn't.

If it was me, I would approach the group and point out their copyright infringement or theft and now that the image looks crap due to the low resolution it's possibly put a tarnish on my rep as a photographer. I would let them know in full how I felt. Don't feel bad about putting them in their place.

I, like you, would have gladly given over a few snaps to promote their charity if asked & I have done so as recently as yesterday after receiving a call from a chap who saw some of my images up online, to promote a section of the Emergency Services.

arodabomb

I would mention it to them if only to protect themselves in future. If they keep this up, they are likely to run into someone who isn't as understanding as you and they may get in trouble. They may not even see the error of their ways yet, so I would say it to them even just for that reason.

PCPhoto

like everyone else has said... give out to them... but in a nice way !! (A strongly worded letter perhaps)

they may be a voluntary organisation but they have a budget to create a calendar....at the very least respect should be commanded and they should have called to ask for permission to use the image.

* I'd have no problem getting on to a solicitor just to make sure they learn a lesson - and learn that breaking the law has consequences, I have given images to charities in the past and done jobs at "mates rates" for them.

peckerhead

I wouldn't give a penny to a solicitor, just do as de8o and arodabomb have suggested.

It's not one of these calendars with aul' wans in the nip, is it?

OldGoat

Tell them where they erred. Don't think of it as giving out to them, think of it as preventing them from being taken for money by the next photographer they lift a picture from (who may not be as understanding as you).

Then offer to take the shots for next years calendar.

magicbastarder

PCPhoto wrote: »

I'd have no problem getting on to a solicitor just to make sure they learn a lesson

this is almost certainly someone who made an honest mistake, did not know the law, and is doing it for a charitable cause. they don't need to be punished, they just need to be let know that this is the sort of things which other might not take so lightly.

jpb1974

Something very similar happened to me in the past.

I didn't bother saying anything in a formal context but I did pass one or two informal comments to people who I knew would pass them on.

It was a worthwhile cause that does good in the local community, and for this reason it didn't bother me too much.

Since then I just watermark local stuff that I do (GAA matches, soccer games, boxing club events etc).

Freddie59

A similar thing happened to me during the year. It took an unbelievable amount of wrangling to get a local website to remove images belonging to me, with them claiming that someone else took them and owned the copyright. I had the originals on my HDD.

Before Christmas I was also approached to allow photos to be included in a calendar. I declined. They then asked what if they offered money. I then ignored them. The images weren't used. There is an attitude out there that if it's on the internet then it's fair game. And sometimes it's people playing the 'ah sure i didn't know' card, when they fully understood.

I also had images used in a Church bulletin, but it was merely through ignorance of the Internet and copyright. When I contacted them I asked if they would just print my name in the next issue and they did so, as I did not want money.

Hi all,

I think the best approach, as has been suggested, is probably a word to one or two of the members of the organisation. As I say, I know a few to say hello to here and there, so I'm sure I'll bump into them sooner or later.

I'll let you know how it plays out (Though I'm sure it'll just be a case of an unintentionally taking it, or not realising I might care).


PCPhoto, I'd go to a solicitor if it were a big company or such. If Coca Cola used my photo, for example, I wouldn't be at all understanding. It's just because I know these guys generally do mean well and I'm sure if they knew that a photographer would be annoyed, they wouldn't have stolen images from a photographer they bump into so often (though they took the image from boards.ie, where it was posted earlier in the year, before any of them would've really known my username on here, so maybe they didn't realise it was me at all).

deegs

It might sound harsh...

But I'd invoice them and make it clear that any money you recieve will be given to an alternate charity, they did the foul play and should learn from it.

let you decide who benefits from your work, thats the true value of your photo!

PCPhoto

magicbastarder wrote: »

this is almost certainly someone who made an honest mistake, did not know the law, and is doing it for a charitable cause. they don't need to be punished, they just need to be let know that this is the sort of things which other might not take so lightly.

I'm not saying take legal action .... more of a solicitors letter in the form of a warning, so they will realise that this sort of thing is serious and it is actually breaking the law - no amount of ignorance/honest mistake can be claimed for future events.

more like a written warning - "do it again and you'll be in serious trouble. !!"

magicbastarder

PCPhoto wrote: »

I'm not saying take legal action .... more of a solicitors letter in the form of a warning, so they will realise that this sort of thing is serious and it is actually breaking the law - no amount of ignorance/honest mistake can be claimed for future events.

more like a written warning - "do it again and you'll be in serious trouble. !!"

c'mon, it's someone trying to raise money for charity and sounds like an honest mistake.
who would want to work for charity if you get sent solicitor's letters over things like this?

PCPhoto

again ...its more about getting the word out so that people have a better understanding of copyright theft.

are you trying to say that its ok to break the law if its for charity and you didn't understand the law...plain and simple - if they dont know they are making a mistake ...how can you prevent them making the same mistake a second time.

Answer...by making them aware they have done something wrong - how do you do it...by sending them a sign/signal that will need their attention, simply telling someone is not enough as they quite often plead ignorance and repeat the mistake again.

if it was not for charity would you have a different attitude ? I'm not saying the person should be punished ... just have them made aware of the potential for making mistakes.

In my job if I make an error it could cost me personally (it could cost me my career and financially could cost a couple of hundred thousand) - so I'm extra careful about my work, I have to learn the laws required for me to do my job and understand when to use common sense and know when I'm close to breaking the law.

magicbastarder

PCPhoto wrote: »

are you trying to say that its ok to break the law if its for charity and you didn't understand the law...plain and simple - if they dont know they are making a mistake ...how can you prevent them making the same mistake a second time.

Answer...by making them aware they have done something wrong - how do you do it...by sending them a sign/signal that will need their attention, simply telling someone is not enough as they quite often plead ignorance and repeat the mistake again.

if it was not for charity would you have a different attitude ? I'm not saying the person should be punished ... just have them made aware of the potential for making mistakes.

you're reading me wrong if you think i'm saying it's OK for charity to break copyright - especially since it's clear that i was advocating having a word with them and letting them know it was not on. that is a signal to them.

and yes, if it was a business or done for profit, i would have a different attitude.

PCPhoto

apologies - I wasn't saying that you were advocating it because they are voluntary/charity...but you were kinda saying ... would ya not go easy on them for that reason.

so were pretty much in agreement....my point was that if you dont tell them they wont know they've broken the law... and will more than likely make the same mistake again (probably with someone else)...but if you send a firm letter from a solicitor then they will more than likely tell family/friends/co-workers and more people will learn of the mistake.

smash

A bit ott, but I came across this on youtube today when I was looking at a music video.

"DISCLAIMER: I DON'T OWN THE SONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OR THE PICTURES OR VIDEO CLIPS! I'm a mearly just a fan nothing more, I have nothing to do with owning or having anything to do with making any of the origional creators"

A lot of people have no concept of copyright at all.

magicbastarder

it's a well worn point at this stage, but i suspect the people on this forum who don't have MP3s of albums they didn't pay for on their computers are in the minority.

jpb1974

but if you send a firm letter from a solicitor

Any idea how much this would cost?

PCPhoto

all depends on if you know anyone in a solicitors office.

if you dont ...its usually €150-200ish....but it is included in costs that you demand as part of the letter.

PCPhoto

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's a well worn point at this stage, but i suspect the people on this forum who don't have MP3s of albums they didn't pay for on their computers are in the minority.

I can safely say I'm in the minority then .... no mp3's ...no downloaded movies, no downloaded software....I do watch streams but they are a grey area legally - not legal...not illegal.

jpb1974

if you dont ...its usually €150-200ish....but it is included in costs that you demand as part of the letter.

It's also worth pointing out that many people laugh in the face of civil law.

I've a pal that's been chasing €5000 that was swindled from him about 7 years ago. Even after winning the court case, having an appeal by the defendant rejected in court, having a payment related hearing and God only knows how many solicitor's letters sent he's still without a penny.. and down all of the solicitor's fees (circa €2k+). His solicitor has even advised that he has won the moral victory but is un-likely to ever see a penny of the money he is due and should just drop it.

That's civil law for you... it only really works if the people you're claiming against are civil in the first place.

PCPhoto

he has the option of getting a high court order for the money - or bring the matter before the high court so that the other person is in breach of a court order and get them put into jail. (note: just for clarity - jail is for the breach of court order ...not for debt because in Ireland you cant goto jail if you can afford to pay a debt)

if he already has civil court orders to pay money - he is in breach of those orders and the sheriff can be sent in to take any possessions and sell on the behalf of the creditor....there is always a legal way to get your money....then there is always the illegal way....also, the legal fees should be included in the debt - so its 9K he is looking for.

your friend also has the option of passing the debt to a debt collector - who will take a fee but will get the money for you.

DaireQuinlan

PCPhoto wrote: »

I do watch streams but they are a grey area legally - not legal...not illegal.

Uh, are we talking about those dodgy unauthorised streaming sites ? IE not ITunes or netflix or the like ? There's nothing grey area about them, watching a streaming movie from one of those sites is ethically and legally identical to downloading the divx off pirate bay or whatever. Plus if you're actually PAYING for it then you're both a mug and facilitating and financially supporting the entire pirate industry.

Kenny Logins

PCPhoto wrote: »

I can safely say I'm in the minority then .... no mp3's ...no downloaded movies, no downloaded software....I do watch streams but they are a grey area legally - not legal...not illegal.

Streaming is downloading.

pete4130

Can we please just have a sticky for when peoples images are stolen, used without permission. These threads are boring.

pete4130

pete4130 wrote: »

Can we please just have a sticky for when peoples images are stolen, used without permission. These threads are boring.

It's one of the few things left to discuss that doesn't end up in a sticky, to be fair (which is probably why it's such a common thread topic). It seems that almost everything else either belongs in a sticky thread or goes into the workshop sub-forum.

Besides, it's in it's third page, so obviously not that boring to people, and as per usual, no one made you click in. It's not like the thread title is at all deceiving.

Cheer up, Pete. T'is Christmas!

pete4130

KKV, It's a common thread that for me, clogs the 1st page of the forum and its always the same answers of:

- Send an invoice

- How much should I charge

- Get a solicitor

- Inform them of the error of their ways



Now think of what recourse is realistic.

- They are broke so you aren't going to get paid

- You aren't going to get a solicitor

- You can let them know their error and move on.


The chances are it probably wont be the last time it happens to you.

In the first 4 pages of this forum there are no less than 6 threads relating to image theft/copyright including yours.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056327399

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056485851

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056329065

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056476962

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056467293

What would you rather see being discussed, out of curiousity, then?

pete4130

What I want discussed is irrelevant and off topic in this thread. I made a suggestion and your taking it personally.

Well you're the one that drove it off-topic, but I don't see how I'm taking it personally? Most of my posting on boards is done in the Emergency Services forum. I made a thread and you posted saying it should be put in a sticky as it's boring you.

You feel threads on copyright theft clog up the main page, which is fair enough, there are plenty of them. All I'm curious to find out is what original threads you'd like to see on the photography forum. I think that's a pretty fair question after your prior statement, no?

magicbastarder

pete4130 wrote: »

In the first 4 pages of this forum there are no less than 6 threads relating to image theft/copyright including yours.

welcome to the photography forum. here you will find many issues surrounding photography discussed, including unlicenced use of images.

PCPhoto

Kenny Logins wrote: »

Streaming is downloading.

Well...thats me corrected.

I thought streaming meant the file was on another persons computer and you are allowed access to view ....more of file sharing.

I watch football streams (FREE) - which is usually a webcam pointed at a TV .... does that count as streaming ?

Wiki has streaming as

Streaming media is multimedia that is constantly received by and presented to an end-user while being delivered by a streaming provider.[note 1] The name refers to the delivery method of the medium rather than to the medium itself. The distinction is usually applied to media that are distributed over telecommunications networks, as most other delivery systems are either inherently streaming (e.g., radio, television) or inherently non-streaming (e.g., books, video cassettes, audio CDs). The verb 'to stream' is also derived from this term, meaning to deliver media in this manner. Internet television is a commonly streamed medium.
Live streaming, delivering live over the Internet, involves a camera for the media, an encoder to digitize the content, a media publisher, and a content delivery network to distribute and deliver the content.

Gaspode

pete4130 wrote: »

Can we please just have a sticky for when peoples images are stolen, used without permission. These threads are boring.

Dont read them then?

I find them interesting, especially as I see it becoming a far more common problem as online posting/storage of photos is expanding exponentially.

sineadw

PCPhoto wrote: »

Kenny Logins wrote: »

Streaming is downloading.

Well...thats me corrected.

I thought streaming meant the file was on another persons computer and you are allowed access to view ....more of file sharing.

I watch football streams (FREE) - which is usually a webcam pointed at a TV .... does that count as streaming ?

Yup. In order to view *any* files on the internet they're downloaded temporarily onto your computer. Every page you view, every image on the page.. and the football broadcasts would be licensed, and have inherent broadcast copyright. So it's theft, same as anyone downloading mp3s or software. Now what was that about ignorance of the law?

As for stickies, i think it's a good idea tbh. It's pretty much the same discussion over and over, so i don't see the harm in putting them in a sticky. I for one would like to see more discussion on photographing things

Kenny Logins

PCPhoto wrote: »

Kenny Logins wrote: »

Streaming is downloading.

Well...thats me corrected.

I thought streaming meant the file was on another persons computer and you are allowed access to view ....more of file sharing.

I watch football streams (FREE) - which is usually a webcam pointed at a TV .... does that count as streaming ?

Wiki has streaming as

Streaming media is multimedia that is constantly received by and presented to an end-user while being delivered by a streaming provider.[note 1] The name refers to the delivery method of the medium rather than to the medium itself. The distinction is usually applied to media that are distributed over telecommunications networks, as most other delivery systems are either inherently streaming (e.g., radio, television) or inherently non-streaming (e.g., books, video cassettes, audio CDs). The verb 'to stream' is also derived from this term, meaning to deliver media in this manner. Internet television is a commonly streamed medium.
Live streaming, delivering live over the Internet, involves a camera for the media, an encoder to digitize the content, a media publisher, and a content delivery network to distribute and deliver the content.

Same as illegal downloading in that it is still piracy, the only difference is you delete as you watch. ...but tbh, most of the content on YouTube is too.

PCPhoto

well... that ruins my Stephens day plans of watching football online - will just have to goto the pub (via the bookies) and watch the games there....the old fashioned way.

if my memory is right...wasn't there an EU court case with a british pub landlord and showing games on tv via satellite - games which were free to watch in other countries may be licenced here and she won, so that would make it legal - if its legal to show the games in those countries....until they change the licencing laws.

PCPhoto

found this on a UK free legal advice website

How can live football matches be shown over the internet?

Currently many peer to peer websites enable users to view football matches live over the internet completely free of charge.

Is this legal?

It is not legal to do this as it is breach of the copyright held by the Premier League in their broadcast rights and also infringes on their ability to sell the rights to television.

Why would this infringe on their rights to sell the games to television as they are still able to sell exclusively to television broadcasters?

If games are shown on the internet the television rights will still be broadcast solely by one television broadcaster who owns the rights but it is the fact that they are available elsewhere over the internet which weakens the rights. If a television company cannot be guaranteed the exclusivity of matches which they have paid for then they will be much more reluctant to once again pay for these rights. This means that the Premier League will not be able to make as much income from selling the rights to broadcast the live matches.

Should the interests of the consumer be offset against the money making powerhouses such as the Premier League and television broadcasters?

Being able to watch football matches live over the internet is a great advantage for the football fan who is unable to afford to pay the subscription fees required to watch live Premier League football. Furthermore, it enables individuals who are out of the country on holiday or who work outside England to get immediate access to English football simply using a laptop. There is also the advantage of football fans being able to watch games played during the hours of 3pm and 5pm on a Saturday afternoon – the broadcasting of which is illegal under UK law.

This may be so but this is a clear breach of the rights held by the football authorities and bodies. Furthermore, the effect of the loss of income is not just felt by the body able to sell the rights.

What other effects will this have on the football world?

The money generated from the selling of football rights is not simply kept by the league who is the owner of the rights; it is also filtered down through to the clubs and also to the lower leagues of football in the UK. Currently it is estimated that 15% of the money made from selling television rights is filtered through to the grass-roots level of football. If the amount of money decreases then this will have an adverse effect on this lower level of the game.

Is there anything which the football authorities can do to prevent football matches being shown in this manner?

The football authorities will initially send a letter to the individual site stating that it is in breach of the rights owned by them in the showing of live football matches. If this letter is ignored it is likely that the football authorities will then work directly with the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to close down the site.

Would it be more appropriate to take direct legal action against the site?

Other industries such as the film and music industry experience very similar problems in relation to file sharing. Initially these industries took legal action directly against the websites resulting in high profile costly legal cases. As a consequence of the cost of legal action these industries have decided to work directly with the ISPs to restrict internet access and bandwidth to sites which persistently offend.

Will I be prosecuted for watching football matches online in this way?

It is extremely unlikely that the football authorities would pursue cases against individuals who watch games in this manner with the more desirable avenue to bring claims directly against the file sharing sites through the ISPs. However, despite the fact that a claim may not be brought against you participating in such a site would not only be seen as a breach of copyright, encouraging these sites to continue may have adverse effects for the very sport which you wish to watch.

magicbastarder

PCPhoto wrote: »

if my memory is right...wasn't there an EU court case with a british pub landlord and showing games on tv via satellite - games which were free to watch in other countries may be licenced here and she won, so that would make it legal - if its legal to show the games in those countries....until they change the licencing laws.

that was more to do with her sourcing a service abroad for cheaper than she would pay at home, and the case revolved around freedom of the market, i.e. that sky (or whoever) could not claim she had to buy the services in her local market.

i think.

anyway, the issue would hinge around whether the person she sourced them from could legitimately supply to her.

i've had a similar argument with a colleague who has decided he is not stealing MP3s as he sources them from allofmp3, which has been ruled in court is acting legally (his understanding).

PCPhoto

either way ... wont be watching streams in the future !

the_syco

pete4130 wrote: »

Can we please just have a sticky for when peoples images are stolen, used without permission. These threads are boring.

Do people actually read the stickies? :pac:

PCPhoto wrote: »

either way ... wont be watching streams in the future !

Unless you're watching the stream from the stations website. View the match on RTE's website, BBC's website, etc, etc... legal

The_Snapper

OP,

I have just spotted one of my images from a recent incident on a website. I know the guy who owns the website very well from around my area but it was taken without my consent or knowledge. He did this to another photographer a while ago.

Invoice sent. People who engage in this have to be aware of the consequences.

LeoB

arodabomb wrote: »

I would mention it to them if only to protect themselves in future. If they keep this up, they are likely to run into someone who isn't as understanding as you and they may get in trouble. They may not even see the error of their ways yet, so I would say it to them even just for that reason.

This is the approach I would be using. Its a charity and you know they are not in a good financial situation so I would just mention it to them along the lines of protecting themselves from someone not as "decent or understanding" as you and protecting your integrity as a photographer, (your image is not as it should be).
As has been pointed out they may not realise what they have done is illegal. I think they would appreciate it and appreciate your "tip - off" to avoid any future problems they could face. They might then actually ask you for an input to next years calendar.

Dont see the need for heavy handed approach especially if they are volenteers doing their best

PCPhoto

LeoB wrote: »

This is the approach I would be using. Its a charity and you know they are not in a good financial situation so I would just mention it to them along the lines of protecting themselves from someone not as "decent or understanding" as you and protecting your integrity as a photographer, (your image is not as it should be).
As has been pointed out they may not realise what they have done is illegal. I think they would appreciate it and appreciate your "tip - off" to avoid any future problems they could face. They might then actually ask you for an input to next years calendar.

Dont see the need for heavy handed approach especially if they are volenteers doing their best

Lots of charities have funding for these sort of situations ...and have budgeted for it, its usually someone with good intentions trying to save a few quid and if caught plead ignorance (although there is sometimes ignorance there) ....but its quite often repeated by the same people.

if the charities are using volunteers - they should make sure their volunteers dont do something illegal - it might be bad form to sue a charity but its also just as bad for someone in a charity to break the law on behalf of the charity and try to think its ok.