Image Theft

[jinzou]

I'm discussing this on another forum about a website that has on their splash page an uncreditted photograph that has apparently been lifted and used without permission.

The webmaster apparently quoted "fair use" and as I interpret the fair use clause, the use of that photo certainly wasn't.

I'm curious has anyone had to deal with this? And if so, did you go so far as to literally lay down the law on them?

[John_T]

Well, yeah. I stopped posting pix recently when I discovered some of my favorite stuff showed up in other places with my copyright cropped or cloned out. Two were actually being offered for print sale.

Needless to say it pissed me off, but at the same time people who do such things will not be easily discouraged. If you notice for each thread there are posts and many more views. In the views there are lurkers like pickpockets in a crowd. I'm rethinking the whole thing of posting pix and don't have an answer yet.

I only know one secure professional site where I'll put up pix for print, rent or sale. They use watermarks and other stuff to block copying and downloads. Until I find something I feel comfortable with, I'm keeping my pix to myself.

[MrPogo]

How big were these pictures of yours that were being sold as prints? I mean, surely for online exhibition they don't need to be any bigger than a computer screen, and at that that resolution wouldn't be suitable for printing out?

[John_T]

They were full 4 or 5 MP. My naivity.

I have several options for my own site and other possibilities to web pix, however the more exposure you have on the web, the higher the chances of viruses, trojans, attacks, spam, et cetera ad infinitum.

I'm looking around and testing for the best option, but it isn't the highest priority right at the moment.

[pradeep1]

Recently a friend of mine went to an art show and there was this "professional" photographer selling his prints. My friend is not that savvy, so she bought some prints from him. Basically 4X6 prints matted with 5X7 matte paper. Nothing great. The prints sucked. They were fuzzy, jpg artifacted, had serious breaks in color tones, and looked good only from 3 feet away. They were pictures of birds. To get those pictures, considering how rare and small those birds were, he would have to have something on the order of a 600 mm lens on him. They were obviously lifted from some place online, since any self respecting digital photographer would not turn out crap like that. He was selling them at $8.00 a pop.

I figured he spent $1.50 on printing and matting.

So please do be aware that there are people out there like that. Don't post anything larger than 500X700 pixels when you post, and use JPG compression (10-15%) to get the file size as small as possible without losing too much quality. That way, when they try to enlarge it, it won't look as good. And definitely don't post the original picture file.

[IndyJeff]

A quick google search brought up this stroy about Corbis. Thought you might be interested

Corbis fights back (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/135178762_btcorbis07.html)

[Leighow]

I hear your concerns, and agree that one at least ought to limit file size to discourage fine prints. That said, I am further wondering:

(1) How good your shots have to be before they are likely to be stolen ?
(2) What your market (topic, geography, etc), promotion, and communications plan must be -- in order for the odd theft to impact your future sales ?
(3) Whether you stand to lose prospects by limiting your exposure/posts ?

My own low key expserience over a period of 7 years suggests that -- and I apprecite that the web is growing exponentially in terms of search and viewing power:

(1) 1 in 10,000 ad hoc/random views invcolves a prospective buyer with $200 ish revenue potential

(2) My nature photography market has a sprinkle of international prospects -- but otherwise is largely my home town ! Also, it is best reached by seeding with low priced prints that generate word-of-mouth prospects,

(3) My most revenue rich pospects were "web scanners via search engines" . Even so, their numbers would be insufficient to underpin any marketing-promotion decision unless you developed your skills, images, and web presence a la Lumionous Landscape !!

Add to that the fact that I "grow" better images each year, and that leaves "me" not too worried about theft, and more worried about the best tactics for defining and implementing a marketing plan to "impact" a local market where every "town fair" has its "town photographer".

So I guess that if you are a whiz -- worry. But if you are just an average photograper, that worry may unfounded.

Just a thought. I could be wrong !

[henkbos]

It's the principle of things: stealing is plain wrong and it has nothing to do with the possible loss of revenue.
I had it once happen to me. Whilst I had every right to file a complaint I reached an agreement to publish more work in an article. Good enough for me as the guy surely would have lost his job. My pics aren't worth that much!

In general I post large enough for a 6x4. People are free to download and print those.

[charlesu]

As Andy Griffith, as Sheriff Andy Taylor, once said: "Stealing is stealing and it's wrong no matter how you look at it."

I've had my images stolen from online posts. Found a guy with a yahoo (or something) member's site and he had modified to remove my copyright and then inserted his own. When I contacted him he claimed it was ok for him to do so as they are derivative works. I showed him the code that outlined that only the copyright owner can create or authorize derivative works. He removed the photos. But he had hundreds of mine and other people's images.

Anyway, I think it's interesting that so many photographers will scream foul about a stolen image when most of them don't have licensed, authorized copies of Adobe Photoshop.

I'm not saying that applies to anyone in this thread but I think we have all known the type.

[timmyquest]

I think i'm just going to start using crappy compression and stamp something across the picture.

[JoeTampa]

What sites were these stolen images found on? I'm sure lots of us would like to peruse them ourselves.

[mvrekum]

Stealing is always wrong :)

Here is my workflow:
First of all I have a copyright message listed on my site based on the message from Philip Greenspun (http://philip.greenspun.com/copyright/). It clearly states what you can and what you can not do whit the images on the site.

Next of course there is not only a copyright message on the image itself, but also in the IPTC tags.

Next I keep a list of the date I posted a pic on my site. (after posting print the webpage. it normaly has the date in the corner)

When I find a picture of mine on a website that does not comply with my copyright statement I print the page (as prove) and I kindly ask the owner of the site to remove the image or comply with the copyright statement, whatever applies.

If he/she doesn't I threathen to sue them (this usualy works).

If they still do not comply I send them a bill for usuage of my picture from the time I posted the picture on my site untill the time it is seen on there site based on the prices of the DPF. The Dutch Photographers Federation(http://www.fotografenfederatie.nl) publishes a list of base prices for the use of images in all kinds of media and for different sizes. If they do not pay they can expect a lawsuit wich is a lot more costly for them and of which I am sure to win (there are many examples of that).

Just keep a copy of all correspondance for your lawyer.


Like I said, threathening with a lawsuit usualy removes your picture from a site. But keep an eye on those sites because usualy the images reapear a few weeks later.

I hope this gives you some ideas.
Anyway it is almost impossible to protect your images from stealing. Statements like "you may not download my images" are useless, because that is what every browser does. Even highly protected images can be stolen, because when you see them on your screen they also are stored in your 'temporary internet files' folder on your harddisk.

Martin

[Yance]

I try to make the pics a small file size and compression to make web access quicker. I also add a watermark to the picture, sometimes with my website address so that if someone links to it, people know where to find my site to see more work.

http://my.execpc.com/~yance/


Maybe people who have found their work stolen can link to those sites in this thread so others can see if their work has been appropriated?

[CyberDyneSystems]

Just FYI,.

mvrekum pointed out correctly that all browsers actually download and store images on the users hard drive whether they right click or not.

They can all be found in your browsers cache. Not that this has any bearing on the discussion but just FYI...

It is easy for some of us,. myself included, to feel that as non pros,. any downloading of our images is o-kay,.. a compliment infact. But to find out that someone has turned around and tried, or succeeded in selling them .. well that is a different issue indeed. Especially if the sale of the images represents the original phographers livelihood.

[Qurlyjoe]

I also use a slightly modified version of Philip Greenspun's copyright (I even asked him first if I could use it!)

I haven't found any cases of my own photos having been stolen, but I have had actual requests from folks who wanted to use one or another of them from time to time. Putting the copyright info into the pic with Photoshop has been SOP for me since I discovered where to do it. I have no idea how much protection that offers, if any. Probably only if a stealer forgets to remove it.

On another hand, strictly speaking, how legal are the avatars that some folks use for themselves on this board? You know who you are. I've seen lots of cartoon characters that are copyrighted. Isn't that stealing?

[edited to correct spelling]

[Yance]

I think the biggest beefs that anyone would have with image theft are either remote linking or actual selling the images. I have no problem with someone using my pictures for nonprofit use as long as I get credit. They can use the pic on their site as long as they host it and as long as it has my watermark. But then again I'm not a professional using it as my only source of income.

[mvrekum]

I think the biggest beefs that anyone would have with image theft are either remote linking or actual selling the images. I have no problem with someone using my pictures for nonprofit use as long as I get credit. They can use the pic on their site as long as they host it and as long as it has my watermark. But then again I'm not a professional using it as my only source of income.

You can easy prevent hotlinking with .htaccess
have a look at this topic:
http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=23063

The images posted here are in a seperate folder on my server. For this demonstration I placed the smaller image in the protected folder.

http://www.photofile.nl/ee/photos/trees_org.jpg

Try clicking on it and watch the surprise :twisted:
Also watch the link change !!!

You can use the code if you want. Place it in a text file called .htacces and upload it to your photos folder (works only if your provider supports .htaccess). Don't forget the dot!!

RewriteEngine on
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^$
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^http://(www\.)?yourdomain.com(/)?.*$ [NC]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^http://(www\.)?www.yourdomain.com(/)?.*$ [NC]
RewriteRule .*\.(gif|jpg|jpeg|bmp|tif|png)$ http://www.yourdomain.com/path_to/noleech.jpg [R,NC]

Of course you can add more domains if you want to, e.g. for friendly sites.

Have fun,
Martin

[PacAce]

I think the biggest beefs that anyone would have with image theft are either remote linking or actual selling the images. I have no problem with someone using my pictures for nonprofit use as long as I get credit. They can use the pic on their site as long as they host it and as long as it has my watermark. But then again I'm not a professional using it as my only source of income.

You can easy prevent hotlinking with .htaccess
have a look at this topic:
http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=23063

The images posted here are in a seperate folder on my server. For this demonstration I placed the smaller image in the protected folder.

http://www.photofile.nl/ee/photos/trees_org.jpg

Try clicking on it and watch the surprise :twisted:
Also watch the link change !!!

You can use the code if you want. Place it in a text file called .htacces and upload it to your photos folder (works only if your provider supports .htaccess). Don't forget the dot!!

RewriteEngine on
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^$
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^http://(www\.)?yourdomain.com(/)?.*$ [NC]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} !^http://(www\.)?www.yourdomain.com(/)?.*$ [NC]
RewriteRule .*\.(gif|jpg|jpeg|bmp|tif|png)$ http://www.yourdomain.com/path_to/noleech.jpg [R,NC]

Of course you can add more domains if you want to, e.g. for friendly sites.

Have fun,
Martin

OK, I don't get it. Clicking on the link you provided sends me this "curtesy" message. However, I can type in the url on my browser address line and I see your image. I can also add the url in an html page and I get your image displayed on that page.

UPDATE:
OK, it works! :)

I uploaded the html page referred to above to my website and now I get the nasty-gram message.

[mvrekum]

OK, I don't get it. Clicking on the link you provided sends me this "curtesy" message. However, I can type in the url on my browser address line and I see your image. I can also add the url in an html page and I get your image displayed on that page.

UPDATE:
OK, it works! :)

I uploaded the html page referred to above to my website and now I get the nasty-gram message.

You got it :) It prevents other sites from LINKING to the image. You CAN type in the link or put it into an html page on your own PC and open it from there, because there is no refferer transmitted when you do that. But you CAN NOT put the link on your website, then you get my little curtesy message :twisted:

Martin

[Bill Lamp]

I post in a 640x480 frame (yes, some are rotated 90 degrees) "stamped" with "© William Lamp" then Digimarced with my ID nimber, etc in JPEG format quality 8-9, in Photoshop.

As the originals are sized to print up to 12x18 inches, I doubt many good full size prints will surface. But are there better alternatives to what I am doing?

Thank you,
Bill

[IndyJeff]

When I did my webpage recently theft was one thing I was worried about. I was advised to display images in a low resolution and small file size. I tried printing one and trust me, there is no way anyone would buy a print. Grainy and very soft looking. In reality the prints I have done of some of the same pics displayed on my site are as crisp and clear as anything I had enlarged when I was shooting film.

Racing (http://racing-action-images.com)

[Bruce Hamilton]

I was advised to display images in a low resolution and small file size. I tried printing one and trust me, there is no way anyone would buy a print.
Perhaps nobody would purchase them from someone else, but those lo-res shots are still good enough to be stolen and used on someone else's website.

[IndyJeff]

LOL Thanks Bruce, I will take that as a compliment.

[pradeep1]

A quick google search brought up this stroy about Corbis. Thought you might be interested

Corbis fights back (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/135178762_btcorbis07.html)

Did you guys know that Corbis is Bill Gates' baby :twisted: ? Hence the aggressive stance, heh?

[shelbix2020]

theres ways to get around the hotlink block .. it just takes a little longer for the picture to show up.

And I dont think owning Adobe Photoshop has anything to do with owning the rights to YOUR photo.

whats with the watermark anyways? wouldnt it be better to put your name across the photo .... heres a random example I found:
http://www.fotosearch.com/bigcomps/BDX/BDX156/bxp31456.jpg

That should be the standard on the forums, to put your name or username watermarked across it like that

[IndyJeff]

I think the biggest beefs that anyone would have with image theft are either remote linking or actual selling the images. I have no problem with someone using my pictures for nonprofit use as long as I get credit. They can use the pic on their site as long as they host it and as long as it has my watermark. But then again I'm not a professional using it as my only source of income.

I have a couple of photos on various websites that have my pictures displayed. All give a photo credit and are done with permission. Jeff Gordon even has one on his photo archive page 2nd picture (http://www.jeffgordon.com/tracks/indy/2001/1/010805indy_photo_album.php)

I can't remember how they got it but, I know they asked permission to display it. I think it came off an old webpage and was a scanned photo. Sure looks soft on there but the original is pretty good.
They don't sell it and it is some free pub for me, so it's all good. Anytome you can get your name out there it is good.
Now if someone does a remote link and gives me no credit.....well then we need to talk!!!

[Grubby]

You can also imbed an invisible watermark on the lowest layer of the image without quality loss. Most photo editing software can do this for you. I use my personal logo on all my the picture I put online (even 800x600).

If you see your image on someones site you can download it and verify the watermark. If the person croped the signature, they are liable. I would not hesitate to threaten someone with legal procedings if they stole my vision.

[4walls]

Is there software or CGI scripts, etc that will automatically put a watermark on all pictures on my website?

I found a program that will do it on the computer (not to mention PS), http://www.unidreamtech.com/

[KennyG]

I'm curious has anyone had to deal with this? And if so, did you go so far as to literally lay down the law on them?

Having read this post (check the court rulings) http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=7963088 in most cases you would be better off letting them 'steal' the images and then sue them. The $27,000 ruling might just make some people think twice about stealing your images.

[O/confusion]

Hi All--

This thread seems to have run cold by now, but I've just been searching through the forums looking for an answer to something that's been on my mind and I hit upon the post by Qurlyjoe back on 01-13-2004 which nobody seems to have answered. So I want to raise the matter again and see if there's any response; the question was/is:

how legal are the avatars that some folks use for themselves on this board? You know who you are. I've seen lots of cartoon characters that are copyrighted. Isn't that stealing?

Do corporate entities such as the lovely and caring people at Disney just turn a blind eye to non-commercial appropriation of their intellectual property? Would people here be offended if another member used one of their copyrighted images as an avatar without payment or permission? Or on a sweatshirt, maybe? Where do we draw the line--and, more to the point, where does the law draw the line?

Just think we should know what we're getting into when we assume something is O.K.to use on a web site. Feedback, anyone? (If I simply missed a definitive response in the course of my search, I apologise; perhaps someone could direct me to it?)

regards,
Terry

[slin100]

The US Copyright Office has a good document on the basics of copyright.
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html

If the picture was taken less than 3 months ago, you can register the picture with the Copyright Office, which serves as public notice of a copyright and, more importantly, grants you the right to recover statuatory (punitive) damages. After 3 months, registration only entitles you to recover actual damages (e.g. lost profits). While registration is not a prerequisite for owning the copyright, registration greatly increases your legal rights in the eyes of the law.

As to fair use, the nature of the website (is it a news reporting service) and the nature of the image (editorial, commercial) dictate whether fair use applies.

You have to decide how far you want to pursue this. If you were selling the image, then you'll probably want to pursue legal action. If you want the publicity, then you can insist that the webmaster make proper attribution.

[jfrancho]

Hi All--

This thread seems to have run cold by now, but I've just been searching through the forums looking for an answer to something that's been on my mind and I hit upon the post by Qurlyjoe back on 01-13-2004 which nobody seems to have answered. So I want to raise the matter again and see if there's any response; the question was/is:

how legal are the avatars that some folks use for themselves on this board? You know who you are. I've seen lots of cartoon characters that are copyrighted. Isn't that stealing?

Do corporate entities such as the lovely and caring people at Disney just turn a blind eye to non-commercial appropriation of their intellectual property? Would people here be offended if another member used one of their copyrighted images as an avatar without payment or permission? Or on a sweatshirt, maybe? Where do we draw the line--and, more to the point, where does the law draw the line?

Just think we should know what we're getting into when we assume something is O.K.to use on a web site. Feedback, anyone? (If I simply missed a definitive response in the course of my search, I apologise; perhaps someone could direct me to it?)

regards,
Terry
I made my own avatar, but I'm not sure what "intellectual property" is being appropriated through using that kind of image in an avatar. My understanding of intellectual property is that it the process by which the product was created or service offered. It would be my guess that any use of the image that does not generate revenue would viewed as free publicity - as if Disney would need publicity for Mickey Mouse. But you get the idea.

[O/confusion]

It would be my guess that any use of the image that does not generate revenue would viewed as free publicity

Thanks for the response. I'm pretty sure no major corporation is going to go ballistic over someone's avatar; but I really don't know about anything else. I've been under the impression that it's not kosher to take someone else's copyrighted image to a copy shop to get a scan or print, or to re-photograph that image if it's on display in a gallery or offered for sale in an art store; so would it be considered O.K., for example, to reproduce a fellow Pro forum member's copyrighted images at home by downloading them and, say, making heat transfers to iron onto a sweatshirt--as long as you don't try to make money in the process?

Don't worry, guys and gals--I'm not planning to actually try this, nor would I ever suggest anyone else should attempt it; I know I've been really angry when I've been told recently by someone selling my framed work that she's had unpleasant confrontations with punters she's caught casually snapping away in her store at anything that happens to take their fancy. These people see nothing amiss in what they're doing. Nor, it seems, do a great many other people out in the world who don't happen to make images for sale.

The avatar question is a part of this larger issue: I'm not very knowledgeable in this area, and I'd like to see what other folk here understand to be "fair use" when it comes to the unauthorised acquisition and display of another person's (or corporate entitity's) copyrighted images, logos, trademarks, etc. for non-commercial purposes and outside of any journalistic context.

regards,
Terry

[rdenney]

...for example, to reproduce a fellow Pro forum member's copyrighted images at home by downloading them and, say, making heat transfers to iron onto a sweatshirt--as long as you don't try to make money in the process?


Copyright law varies from country to country. In the U.S., it's the copying that is protected, not the profit. Thus, even if you gave away those T-shirts, it would be an infringement.

But proving infringement is a separate issue. The protection is there, period. But the burden of proof is on the infringer if the image was never displayed without a copyright notice. That includes the copyright notice at the bottom of one's web page, or the copyright notice at the bottom of this page (Copyright 2000-2005 Jelsoft, Inc., and yes I know that's the copyright notice originally intended for the forum software, but it's still notice that everything on the page is protected, requiring the user to gain permission before use). Copyright registration establishes a prima facie case for ownership, but ownership can be proven without it pretty easily. Thus, registration of the copyright is only a minor convenience for the sorts of infringements we are discussing.

But, to bring civil action, there must be a loss. That loss can either be in revenue (you sell prints and the infringer cuts into your market by selling prints) or in good name (the infringer's prints are crappy, bringing disrepute to your skills).

In today's world, where most Internet viewers believe that if it's on the Internet it's free for them to use however, there is not much one can do to persuade them otherwise. But if someone is selling a stolen image, or otherwise making money from it, I would start with a cease-and-desist letter from a lawyer. Those who are merely ignorant of the law will respond to that. If they don't care, or if they are in a foreign country, that won't do any good.

It appears to me as a non-lawyer that use of degraded images for personal use would be considered a fair use (ala the Sony Beta case that allowed people to make video tapes of copyrighted materials for backup and for their own convenience). So, I think it makes sense to control our product by controlling the resolution and image quality. That's why all my images are no more than 700 pixels and no larger than 100K JPEG (with few exceptions). Even 4x6 prints will look a bit choppy, and it will look choppy even as a desktop background.

I have had people request permission to use my images for commercial use, and most of the time I've granted it with no issue (they wanted just the sky or something like that). But it has to be done in writing to be legal. I'm sure some of my images have been stolen (or, at least I'd like to think so, heh, heh). But I put them on the web so people can see them.

The only way anyone is getting enough resolution to make a decent print, though, is to pay me for it, with a written agreement. And I'll also want to look them in the eye.

Rick "noting the queue is empty at the moment, heh, heh" Denney

[slin100]

While certainly advisable, a copyright notice is no longer required under U.S. copyright law.

I don't think there necessarily needs to be a loss to bring civil action. Copyright confers rights to control the reproduction, distribution and display of one's photograph. The only exception is fair use. Since we don't know any details about the website nor the commercial value of the photograph, it's impossible to tell if fair use applies here. Copyright law also confers rights to attribution, so, even in the case of fair use, the photographer can demand proper credit for taking the photograph.

[O/confusion]

Thanks for the clarification, Rick.

Cheers,

Terry

[RJSorensen]

Interesting thread to say the least. I see here some put a LARGE © in the center of the photograph. I can assure you no one would steal them, most viewers are sorry they looked at it. Why is it that we all think we EACH take the most wonderful photographs in the world. Each of them a Pulitzer Prize winner . . .

Simply they are not. Most of my shots suck. A few are ok. I am still looking for that 'One' good shot. Most likely I always will. So MOST of us here can really only dream of someone 'stealing' our work. I would be happy if you just even looked at it. You see time is too important to spend on so-so photos, and bad ones . . . dear heavens.

A different spin on the topic I suppose. If I were CharlesU I might worry . . .

[CyberDyneSystems]

DOH!

[byso]

Well what a good topic, I had the same issue on a sports supporter site. I was alerted to the fact another site had about 100 of my images uploaded to there own site.

So I now leave a watermark in the middle......I don't think that people will make money from the photo's but they tend to post them on there own site without giving credit to the photographer.

When I initially put watermarks in the photo I copped some flack from a couple of posters. Who weren't used to seeing them.

[Redbird_xo]

I'm a total novice here. But isn't it true that most anything added in a picture during post processing by software, such as Photoshop, can be removed by software? If that's true, what's the benefit of putting copyright watermark in picture to "copyright" it? Please enlighten me.

[byso]

Placing a watermark through the centre of the picture would surely make it difficult for someone to fix it would probably take hours of work and that’s if it could be done at all. Generally a picture placed on the web wouldn't be worthwhile spending the time on to do it.

Some websites use other people photos to attract people to look at there site. This is wrong if the photographer doesn't know about it or approve of in my opinion.

[RJSorensen]

It is the honor system . . . with some not having honor.

[Avalonthas]

In my opinion if u post large resolution pics on the net, its ur fault if they get stolen and are uncredited, as there will always be thieves no matter what, until we are so technologically advanced that we develope Precrime. Back to reality, you should only post small pics on the net to protect ur work.

[GerryDavid]

Makes sense to register the images with the government, so when you do someone you can sue them and make it worth while and get a nice paycheck from it. I know of a guy that names each image specifially so he can do a search later on with google and hes found many of his pictures this way. tobad pbase and smugmug doesnt use the uploaded file name in the url.

[Pinto]

Most reputable ISPs have a TOS, (Terms of Service) that prohibits the exhibition of anything in violation of copyright.

The first thing you need to do when you find an image has been misappropriated, is to contact the thief’s ISP and report the theft. Most do not want these kind of people on their sites and are sensitive to your alerts.

Do not sit back and think that you are getting some kind of positive exposure.
You are not.

Someone is using your images, without your permission, for their person gain. Either selling your images or using them to draw traffic for some other profitable scheme.

Even if the theft is only for ego building—representing your work as theirs—this is theft, pure and simple. This happens all over the web, every day, with every type of image.

Do not let it go.

[Redbird_xo]

Most reputable ISPs have a TOS, (Terms of Service) that prohibits the exhibition of anything in violation of copyright.

The first thing you need to do when you find an image has been misappropriated, is to contact the thief’s ISP and report the theft. Most do not want these kind of people on their sites and are sensitive to your alerts.

I'm afraid that the burden of proof issue hasn't been pointed out here. The alleged perpetrator or the claimant has the BOP? ISP providers are businessmen, they just won't base on one side of the story to take action against their customers. This might be one of the reasons why we don't hear many legal cases on images theft on the Internet. We are still in infancy stage in cyberspace laws.

[4nR]

personally, i dont care if anyone wants to print my pics or download them and manipulate them, and consider it a sort of compliment when someone does. however, i do draw the line when they do so to make money off of it. i guess i wont worry about copyrights or watermarks until i either actually start making money from my shots or someone else does :)

[rdenney]

I'm afraid that the burden of proof issue hasn't been pointed out here. The alleged perpetrator or the claimant has the BOP? ISP providers are businessmen, they just won't base on one side of the story to take action against their customers. This might be one of the reasons why we don't hear many legal cases on images theft on the Internet. We are still in infancy stage in cyberspace laws.

In U.S. copyright law, the burden of proof is on the accused infringer if the image has always appeared with a copyright notice, and on the copyright holder if it hasn't. Unlike with printed material, however, it's quite difficult to prove how something was marked and when it was marked.

But I figure that if one has the full-resolution, uncompressed, unmanipulated and uncropped original (i.e., the digital negative), that should be proof enough. Pointing that out in a cease-and-desist letter should give the recipient pause, if there is anything that will give them pause. "You must cease and desist all use of said image at once and destroy all copies thereof. Furthermore, you must pay a royalty of X for each image that has been sold, given away, displayed in public, or otherwise distributed. Furthermore, you must provide all documentation showing said distribution. The owner of the copyright has the original, unmanipulated RAW digital file produced by the camera as evidence of ownership." (I'm no lawyer; this is an imitation of lawyer-like talk so please don't use it).

Rick "thinking someone would have to spend lots more in effort than I would charge in royalties to convincingly spoof my original RAW file" Denney