Advice Required

Necronomicon

Hopefully common sense will prevail and it will be acknowledged that while his approach was ill-conceived, it was in the heat of the moment and is not deserving of a permanent siteban; especially when you consider all that PCPhoto has done for the community.

Having never had an image spread like that (or having to make a living from it) I can only imagine how frustrating the last few days have been for him, but I have to agree with the sentiments of Sir Gallagher and randylonghorn that threatening Boards and the OP with legal action is his first reaction was a little out of order.

Some of the replies in the Soccer forum thread in ignorance to photographers' rights make me cringe. But the OP is an extremely good-natured poster who is held in the type of esteem in the SF as PCPhoto is in the Photography forum, which explains (if not excuses) the hostility of the posters towards PCPhoto in light of his brash approach.

nucker

PCPhoto wrote: »

ok ... scenario is ....

recently took a pic which has gone viral - its being used by blogs/websites all over the world.

Do I ? .....

A) Let it go ... this stuff happens !
Send invoices to every single person/website/newspaper.
C) Get in contact with a syndication agency who I will have to give my copyright to and let them chase everyone (this option means I have to take a percentage of any monies they do actually get)
D) Send out a solicitors letter to everyone demanding payment

if C ... does anyone have experience with syndication agencies ? I have been approached by one but would see the need to shop around instead of taking the first offer.

The pic in question - because people will be interested to know ...Zak Gilsenan (9yr old who signed for Barca)

This is why you should have a watermark. I use one right in the middle of my photos just so I can get people who are interested in using photos to contact me first

Gregor Samsa

Necronomicon wrote: »

Hopefully common sense will prevail

Indeed, I think common sense is really the key in all of this...

PCPhoto started this very thread looking for advice in how to handle the unauthorised use of his image. Looking at the replies, and the results of the poll, only one person thought that going straight to the legal route was a good idea. Most people thought that sending invoices, or getting an agency to do it on his behalf was the way to go. Common sense in action.

Now I assumed, and I'd wager that most other people did too, that he was talking about commercial websites. Not someone posting the image up on a discussion forum purely for illustrative purposes. Forget the law for a second and think in terms of common sense. There's a big, big difference between a news website using the image without paying, and some guy on a soccer forum hot-linking it to illustrate a point. Even if you subscribe the the notion that stealing an image for commercial use is the same as stealing a book from a shop, then what mars bar did is pretty much on the same level as bringing some friends into a bookshop and showing them the book. Sure the bookshop owner has the right to point to the "no reading" signs, but would common sense suggest that he jump straight in with a threat to call the cops?

If he had handed the image over to a syndication agency to enforce licensed use, do you think they would have gone after some user on Boards for the transgression in question? I don't know for sure, but my gut feeling is that they - the experts in this - would have followed the money, and not wasted their time with dealing with insignificant breaches of copyright. Common sense again.

It looks, from this thread, that PCPhoto has never had an image that's been so successful in usage terms. So this was maybe all a bit new to him. He could have been known as "the photographer that took the Zak Gilsenan pic". Used it to to make a name for himself, and got (rightly) paid from the commercial use of it. But now he's the photographer that straight off the bat threatened to sue some random individual and the biggest online community in the country for what most people would regard as fairly innocent use of the image. Hopefully it won't do him any commercial harm, but it'll hardly be a benefit.

We all know that PCPhoto has a fairly dogmatic attitude to copyright, but that kind of dogmatism can fly in the face of common sense sometimes. Being right is one thing, but doing the right thing is a different kettle of fish.

Hopefully common sense will prevail in terms of the site ban too, which is undoubtedly excessive. PCPhoto is a great photographer, and a very helpful poster, and while he's taken a less active role around here lately, he is a solid part of the community here. While I'm sure that this experience will have soured him to participating in Boards.ie, hopefully he'll be back soon, and we'll all be better and wiser for it.

Lastly, if you're reading this PCPhoto, dig up, man, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DIG UP!!! Looking for your pound of flesh in this case is not the way to go. Let common sense prevail!

Gregor Samsa

nucker wrote: »

This is why you should have a watermark. I use one right in the middle of my photos just so I can get people who are interested in using photos to contact me first

The image in question was legally used on the Sun's website, and was taken from there. News websites are hardly going to pay for an image that has a watermark splashed across the middle of it.

artyeva

wow.wasn't expectin' that.

still, hopefully ''corkbah'' will still be logged in on pc's laptop around to set us all on the straight and narrow about stealing other people's images/jobs while pc is on his holidays

nucker

phutyle wrote: »

The image in question was legally used on the Sun's website, and was taken from there. News websites are hardly going to pay for an image that has a watermark splashed across the middle of it.

Fair enough, if used legally, then the photographer should contact them, plus invoice them for usage.

I would also then go to a syndication agency, they can deal with these matter properly. The only thing is they are going to take a percentage of the fee(s)

I would also take a screenshot of where it is being used or ask them for a tear sheet so the OP can use it for future references

phutyle

I've been reading through the thread (and other threads relating to this, as copyright is obviously a big part of the world of photography) and it's interesting to hear some of the opinions.

phutyle wrote: »

He could have been known as "the photographer that took the Zak Gilsenan pic". Used it to to make a name for himself

Just on this point; as PC is a professional, he relies on photography to pay his bills and to live off. I can think of lots of iconic images throughout history, but even as someone who's a photographer myself, I couldn't tell you who took any of them.

Getting 'credited' for an image (as I've learned the hard way) is of absolutely no use. It doesn't help you get future work or get your name out there as much as most people would think (the only work it leads to, in my experience, is more work where the person wants you to work for free for a 'credit', which is grand if you're a hobbyist, of course, but an experienced professional like PCPhoto, who's known to all the papers already, doesn't need it).


I also think the attitude of the posters in the Soccer forum was way over the top and incredibly insulting.


I realise most will say PC's post threatening legal action may be over the top, and that's fair enough, but considering his image has become massively popular in a short time frame, I don't think having a discussion about the ins and outs of copyright was a priority to him. I'm pretty sure he just wanted the photo taken down (and others to know that he didn't want it posted) while he tried to track it's other online usage so he could find out where it was being used.


I'm pretty sure he knows this is a community thing, and not a news site. If he thought otherwise, I doubt he'd have asked for it to be removed, and instead would've just invoiced boards.ie (as he'll no doubt do with actual news sites).


I also think the whole "it's only linked to on boards, not actually hosted here, it's from Yahoo" excuse isn't plausible. If that was the way it worked you'd only ever sell a photograph once and then everyone else would just take it from there.


That said, all of that is just my own opinion of course. I haven't been talking to PCPhoto today at all, and I'm not sure if he's having any progress with the admins/mods but hopefully he'll be back with us soon. He's a tremendous poster and of great help to the photography forum.

magicbastarder

Deleted User wrote: »

Just on this point; as PC is a professional, he relies on photography to pay his bills and to live off. I can think of lots of iconic images throughout history, but even as someone who's a photographer myself, I couldn't tell you who took any of them.

Getting 'credited' for an image (as I've learned the hard way) is of absolutely no use. It doesn't help you get future work or get your name out there as much as most people would think (the only work it leads to, in my experience, is more work where the person wants you to work for free for a 'credit', which is grand if you're a hobbyist, of course, but an experienced professional like PCPhoto, who's known to all the papers already, doesn't need it).

to expand on this point - and i hope PCPhoto doesn't take this the wrong way - it's not a 'great' shot. i.e. it's the story behind it which is selling the image, not the quality of the shot. it's not a career making break for a photographer. so it's not something he'll be able to trade exposure for work.

tororosso

randylonghorn wrote: »

Someone linked to the pic because they were discussing how young the kids were; there was no intent to gain from another's work; there was no particular intent to breach copyright; there was simply thoughtlessness. This was not a case of a news site or similar which would obviously know better deliberately re-posting a photographer's copyright work; it was a couple of lads talking about soccer and (in their minds) basically picking up the newspaper and pointing to the picture and saying "look how young they are!". Yes, legally it's slightly different but the vast majority of ordinary people don't understand that.

A simple "That's a copyright photo, lads, could you remove it please?" I have no doubt would have seen it removed immediately, probably with an embarrassed apology, and without any of the smartass comments.

Wade in to any situation like that with immediate threats of legal action and you get everyone's back up. No one likes to be threatened for what they see as no good reason. Do you?

You might, but imho it's the only way you're ever going to win the battle.

I have a friend who is heavily into his photography, so I can understand the photographer's point of view on this.

But the reality is that 95% + of ordinary people don't know the law, and more importantly don't understand why photographers get angry about this, or understand that it threatens a 'tog's livelihood.

And they never will if it's not explained calmly to them. IMHO the choice is simple: keep your patience and educate people and win the battle by degrees, or stand on the high ground and shout at people and throw legal threats around and close people's ears to what you're actually saying.

It's different ofc when you're dealing with a news agency or a big company and they've swiped your pic thinking that they'll probably get away with it. They know better; they know they're in breach of the law. For that matter, if someone from Boards staff had posted it in this instance, they *should* know better, and I presume they do. But it wasn't. It was a couple of lads chatting about soccer, much as if they were in the pub over a pint.

For the record, I have a lot of sympathy for PCPhoto in this instance; he was trying to deal with his pic basically having gone viral, and it must have been very annoying to see it pop up on Boards of all places; I'm sure his patience just flew out the window. Hopefully, a couple of days for everyone to calm down and this can be resolved in a friendly fashion.

Also for the record, I'm not a photographer, not even a good amateur (ye probably guessed! ). My background is in education and in community work. I wouldn't claim to be an expert, I'm not that full of myself, but I might claim to have learned a thing or two over the years about how you actually win the battle to change peoples' attitudes.


Btw, phutyle wins my personal "post of the thread" award!

I'll acknowledge that PCPhoto's approach was mistaken and he could have asked them in a different way or simply PM'ed the culprit to have his photo taken down. I know it was only posted for social purposes and was not for any commercial gain but at the same time, by posting it on boards the photo was being further placed outside of the photographers control and the photographer holds the right to determine who gets to copy his photo. Photos posted online should really be watermarked but as this was for a news website then it removes the argument that the photographer should have protected the image online.

At the end of the day everybody knows what they own. If I didn't take a photo then I know sure as hell that I have no ownership over it. The reality is that most people will lift images off the internet and it's deemed ok so long as the photographer either a, doesn't care or b, doesnt find out about it. Just because the culture exists does not mean that laws arent being breached.

I largely agree though about what you are saying about changing people's attitudes. At the same time I would be tempted to ask some of those in the soccer forum where they get their soccer jerseys from?!

Paddy@CIRL

I feel really sorry for PCPhoto but it serves as a perfect example of why you should never go in all guns blazing. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar and all that.

jpb1974

it serves as a perfect example of why you should never go in all guns blazing

Usually at this point someone would hotlink to an image of Rambo and say "it worked for him".

But given the nature of this thread... :eek:

tororosso

jpb1974 wrote: »

Usually at this point someone would hotlink to an image of Rambo and say "it worked for him".

But given the nature of this thread... :eek:

so long as nobody informs the photographer it's all good!

hbr

Deleted User wrote: »

I've received a text message from PCPhoto to inform me that he has been banned from boards because he disputed the use of this image on the Soccer forum.

His posts can be read in this thread;

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=79760997#post79760997

Thats absolutely disgusting! Shame on boards.ie. I don't really want to be be
a part of this so I will delete my account today.

Thanks to all for the good company over the last few years.

magicbastarder

not deleting your account would not mean you condone the action nor that it would mean you were a part of it.

I don't think deleting accounts it the best form of protest (I don't even know if you can delete a Boards.ie account?)

randylonghorn

tororosso wrote: »

I'll acknowledge that PCPhoto's approach was mistaken and he could have asked them in a different way or simply PM'ed the culprit to have his photo taken down. I know it was only posted for social purposes and was not for any commercial gain but at the same time, by posting it on boards the photo was being further placed outside of the photographers control and the photographer holds the right to determine who gets to copy his photo.

Absolutely.

We're only discussing approach here ... and we seem to be much more on the same wavelength than we would have appeared to be last night.

As Paddy says, without my long-windedness ... :pac:

Paddy@CIRL wrote: »

I feel really sorry for PCPhoto but it serves as a perfect example of why you should never go in all guns blazing. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar and all that.

hbr wrote: »

Thats absolutely disgusting! Shame on boards.ie. I don't really want to be a part of this so I will delete my account today.

Thanks to all for the good company over the last few years.

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think deleting accounts it the best form of protest (I don't even know if you can delete a Boards.ie account?)

You can't, and everyone agrees to that in the T&C when they sign up. You can ofc close your account though, as s/he has done.

I honestly wonder did s/he actually read past the post s/he quoted?

I guess we'll never know.

ronanc15

hbr wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

I've received a text message from PCPhoto to inform me that he has been banned from boards because he disputed the use of this image on the Soccer forum.

His posts can be read in this thread;

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=79760997#post79760997

Thats absolutely disgusting! Shame on boards.ie. I don't really want to be be
a part of this so I will delete my account today.

Thanks to all for the good company over the last few years.

You appear to have missed the cracking a nut with a hammer reference.

nucker

I can understand the OP's pov really. Photographers like myself are trying their best to earn money and get a good reputation from doing this, it can be so annoying that someone had hotlinked a photo. To be honest I would never post anything of my best on the internet. Though the nature of the internet means people want more than just text to tell a story

The image is small, but that isn't the point. Photographers earn nothing with silly photo releases being pushed into their face by musicians who earn millions from merchandise and CD sales of them whining about their lost puppies etc...

PopeBuckfastXVI

Hotlinking on a discussion forum to a newspaper site that has paid the the photographer already is a world apart from rehosting the image, or even aggregating content for commercial purposes.

The photographer has been paid by the newspaper for their image, the only thing even close to being 'stolen' here is bandwidth from the newspaper site, it is up to them to protect their content/bandwidth and protect from hotlinking, it's not the original photographers job to police that for them.

Based on your tone in the soccer forum I can only suggest you hand over royalty collection to a 3rd party agency that will be less hot headed PCP.

Sir Gallagher

hbr wrote: »

Thats absolutely disgusting! Shame on boards.ie. I don't really want to be be
a part of this so I will delete my account today.

Thanks to all for the good company over the last few years.

Lol.

nucker

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Hotlinking on a discussion forum to a newspaper site that has paid the the photographer already is a world apart from rehosting the image, or even aggregating content for commercial purposes.

The photographer has been paid by the newspaper for their image, the only thing even close to being 'stolen' here is bandwidth from the newspaper site, it is up to them to protect their content/bandwidth and protect from hotlinking, it's not the original photographers job to police that for them.

Based on your tone in the soccer forum I can only suggest you hand over royalty collection to a 3rd party agency that will be less hot headed PCP.

I would never be like PCP, though I would be upset nonetheless. Correct, its up to the newspapers to deal with how they deal with the images on their site, but the internet is full of ways around it. Correct, the newspapers/agencies should sue rather than members going mental on forums, it solves nothing with other members baiting people into reacting more.

brightspark

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Hotlinking on a discussion forum to a newspaper site that has paid the the photographer already is a world apart from rehosting the image, or even aggregating content for commercial purposes..

True, but it doesn't mean copyright infringement didn't occur, and displaying the image here isn't exactly the same as showing the paper to a colleage at work.

As far as I am aware despite it's communtity appearance, Boards.ie actually employs people and raises revenue via advertising so it could be argued that as the content here attracts users, which in turn raises revenue from adverts, that any images posted here are for the commercial benefit of Boards.ie

The photographer has been paid by the newspaper for their image, the only thing even close to being 'stolen' here is bandwidth from the newspaper site, it is up to them to protect their content/bandwidth and protect from hotlinking, it's not the original photographers job to police that for them..

Just because the newspaper has paid to use the photo it doesn't mean that the photo is now the property and responsibility of that paper. The IP usually still belongs to the photographer, who still retains the right to decide who can and can't use that image.

By your logic once radio stations have paid for the right to broadcast songs, there is no further payment due to the artists. IMRO (who collect the licences from businesses throughout the country on behalf of the artists) would disagree with you on that logic, and I expect that the law fully supports them.

Based on your tone in the soccer forum I can only suggest you hand over royalty collection to a 3rd party agency that will be less hot headed PCP.

And if you think that a 3rd party agency will be happy with a "sorry we didn't know any better, but we took it down so go away" you are mistaken, they will demand that a fee be paid regardless (I've seen a letter sent by Getty Images to someone who unwitttingly used a Getty Image on their website)
As far as I am aware Boards.ie does have a commercial basis for it's existance and can be viably sued.



It's probably a reflection of how successful Boards.ie is that there seem to be a lot of amateurs and professionals using and supporting the site and as a result there are conflicts between them.

It's obvious that a lot of knowledgeable people support Boards.ie and I would guess that a lot of them are professionals in the areas to which they contribute, freely giving information that they probably charge others for during the day.

But unless Boards respects the professionals in the various fora, I am afraid that they will all eventually quit the site, leaving a much poorer experience here for the remaining members.

Perhaps the pros here (in all the various fora) need a special status like the "Verified representative" given to those posting on behalf of commercial organisations.


Finally while my photography is purely a hobby and I usually only lurk on this forum, until PCPhoto is unbanned I will no longer be giving any advice on the Electrical Forum.

AnCatDubh

brightspark wrote: »

...

I'm not sure if you've read the prison thread. It provides context from both sides.

Just posting as I think it's useful in understanding how things have ended up the way it has in that particular situation. Hope it helps.

ronanc15

AnCatDubh wrote: »

brightspark wrote: »

...

I'm not sure if you've read the prison thread. It provides context from both sides.

Just posting as I think it's useful in understanding how things have ended up the way it has in that particular situation. Hope it helps.

Also as the situation lies it really doesnt look like PCP's return is imminent

RoryW

Boards.ie went down in my estimation from this.

Whatever about whether his approach was hot headed and wrong or not, PCP was stating an option open to him which was a legal right of his if he so choose to do so.

Seeking clarification resulting in some unfortunate infantile responses from those in authority from whom one would expect a more professional response - again bringing boards.ie down in my estimatation.

To be told that his privilege to access boards has been revoked is akin to the treatment seen in certain countries where a person speaks against the government and is never heard from again.

It seems unfortunate that with right and wrong on both sides that an impasse has been reached where neither side appears willing to make the first move, apologise and move on.

Is it possible that boards.ie will show proper leadership and provide an amnesty for PCP rather than putting him in a position of having to eat humble pie if he wishes to use boards.ie again. His pride no doubt makes this difficult to do.

Boards.ie is a lesser place without him.

The photography forum is a lesser place without him.

artyeva

RoryW wrote: »

To be told that his privilege to access boards has been revoked is akin to the treatment seen in certain countries where a person speaks against the government and is never heard from again.

i understand the sentiment behind your post, but..... seriously???!!! :rolleyes:

brightspark

Gone well off topic now..

I think we are all guilty of thinking sites such as this, facebook and several others are for the benefit of the community, whereas in fact they are commercial operations, whose principal function is to make profits.

And as commercial entities they will do what it takes to protect their profit margins!

But PCPhoto was also only trying to protect his livelihood. There is plenty of blame on both sides

PopeBuckfastXVI

brightspark wrote: »

True, but it doesn't mean copyright infringement didn't occur, and displaying the image here isn't exactly the same as showing the paper to a colleage at work.

Inline linking to a legitimate bought and paid for copy of a photo is no different than proving a href link to the same public resource.

It's quite simply not copyright infringement, and would only be a grey area if the linked copy itself was infringing. In this case it isn't.

I'm open to being shown any examples of somebody providing a link to a public, legitimate copy of any content being found to be infringing copyright, if you can provide one.

I like PCP, and he's been a very valuable member of this forum, for what it's worth. However threatening legal action against boards, whether on spurious or legitimate grounds is a site banning offence, it's in the T&C's we all sign up for. Boards is a private service to which nobody has an a priori right of access, it was a silly threat and has cost both him, and us as a community community a great deal. And what's been achieved? An inline link to a copy of a picture that was bought and paid for has been removed from a random thread on boards, totally worth it...

brightspark

Have you ever read the terms and conditions of most websites (including the one belonging to the newspaper in question)

unauthorised framing of or linking to the Website is prohibited

also in their terms and conditions

You may not post, modify, distribute, or reproduce in any way any copyright material, trademarks, or other proprietary information belonging to others without obtaining the prior written consent of the owner of such proprietary rights

This is because they have not "bought and paid for" the photo, they have merely obtained a licence to use it, in limited predefined circumstances.

I also doubt if a newspaper website is truely a 'public resource' as no doubt it is also within their terms and conditions to be able to limit access to whomever they choose.

Calhoun

RoryW wrote: »

To be told that his privilege to access boards has been revoked is akin to the treatment seen in certain countries where a person speaks against the government and is never heard from again.

It seems unfortunate that with right and wrong on both sides that an impasse has been reached where neither side appears willing to make the first move, apologise and move on.

Is it possible that boards.ie will show proper leadership and provide an amnesty for PCP rather than putting him in a position of having to eat humble pie if he wishes to use boards.ie again. His pride no doubt makes this difficult to do.

Boards.ie is a lesser place without him.

I don't think boards has ever pretended to be a democracy or to provide the rights of one, if you look at prison or the DRP threads enough you come across a common trend of folks thinking they have the right to type what they like on boards without consequences but 9/10 they are slapped back into place.

As an outsider looking at this I think that PCPhoto was given enough goodwill which he threw back in the face of mods, I am not sure what more they can do because if you check helpdesk there is a question from the folks of the soccer forum asking for him to be banned. If the rules are to be enforced it has to be the same for all and not one rule for some but another for others.

I don't think boards is lesser for this, as a user for nearly 10 years someone who would threaten such a valuable but free service doesn't deserve the right to post.