Desperate for HELP ASAP!!(online image theft)

[98photo]

Ok, this is a wierd issue. My husband and I work together (no that is not the problem! ;) ) and he Googled himself the other day to see what would come up. Is this a guy thing? :rolleyes: Anyway, anout four listings down there was a Brazilian website that had us both listed so, being curious as we have Never been to Brazil we checked it out. This person has theived one of our photos from a protected site were you can buy our work and he has the audacity to put HIS name on it!!! Now I know our names are on the site as they are the Only english on the page and we have no idea what the site says, even the translation is iffy, but he does not have our permission to use our image and I want it removed and I am not sure how to go about getting him to do so. Any advice?? Here is the site:
http://fotolog.terra.com.br/literis:93
My photo is of the surfer with the helicopter and the giant wave. Another reason I am angry is this makes my image look really Bad! :evil:
Thanks for any assistance!

[lingham]

looks like he has put your name on the site....well i think he has i cant read that site very well my brazilian aint all that

[98photo]

He has put our names on the site but he put his name on the image and the image looks like crap. It was taken from a protected site and without permission.

[DarrenL]

Send him an e-mail asking for the image to be removed asap or grant him a rights license and make him pay for the image.

Darren

[Honeybee]

Maybe you can contact his ISP if he doesn't respond. I think with him being in Brazil, you're not going to have much luck with the legal route, but what do I know?

[lingham]

Maybe you can contact his ISP if he doesn't respond. I think with him being in Brazil, you're not going to have much luck with the legal route, but what do I know?

agreed to be honest unless he speaks english

[98photo]

We have sent an email and we are waiting for a reply. I am not sure if he speaks english or not as the site is in Portugese.

[Gary_Evans]

Resend the email in both languages. Use something like http://babelfish.altavista.com/ for the translation if you dont know any Portugese speakers

[KirkHMB]

Not that it helps much, but here's a freebie web site (http://ets.freetranslation.com/) translation of part: (Babelfish made a mess of it)(Assuming Anjes is his or her name)

WORLD DAY OF THE WATER. PLANET WATER

AMNIÓTICO CRADLE

Who sees the immensity of the seas, of the oceans, bare surfaces, not the primitive belly imagines, [amniótico] cradle of all the life, genetic ancestralidade my, yours, of everybody you will be created them, by the Divine Author of the Universe... Water life, well restricted, well finite

--. - Alive Water. Cycle of the Life!

[ANJES]

Pictures: Robin Fowler & Jaime Camire + Stefanie Fischer - Gif: [ANJES]

[ANJES]

YOU KNEW?

We live in a Planet 70% water... In a body 70% water... and that:

1. Of the 70% of the water of the Planet, barely 3% is potable?

2. Of those 3%, Brazil has 13,6%?

Blah Blah

Comments (1) :

In 22/03/2007, to the 13:44:43, K | fotolog said: Lawful that it throw of the pictures will change!!! THE images are even most better! I see that we have the same worries... always we should divulge our thoughts and great attitudes day of the water. ..?

[S.Horton]

..the guy's in Brazil, you're wasting your time if you try to demand something.

[EnronRocks]

To try legal action, you would have to fly to where his ISP (His website) is hosted, and who knows laws there. Here you would have to have a hearing with a judge who will then try to urge a settlement out of court. If that wouldn't work here, you would then file a lawsuit and go to court.

As far as I can tell the site is hosted in Brazil - Rio Grande Do Sul - Porto Alegre by a company known as Comite Gestor Da Internet No Brasil.
IP Information 200.176.3.142

[liza]

I wonder if it's the same guy who went by the name "Jimmy" on Flickr. He was an attention whore, who stole other people's images for recognition. He was also from Brazil.

[liza]

I just checked out his site. At first glance, it appears that he's properly crediting the photographers. If that's the case and he isn't profiting from it, there isn't anything you can do. That happened to me when I had some of my good stuff on Flickr and I was told that blogging images was legal. I don't agree with the practice at all.

[EnronRocks]

I just checked out his site. At first glance, it appears that he's properly crediting the photographers. If that's the case and he isn't profiting from it, there isn't anything you can do. That happened to me when I had some of my good stuff on Flickr and I was told that blogging images was legal. I don't agree with the practice at all.

Unless your website has a TOS that specifically stated image theft or "barrowing" as people call it. Then he is in violation of that, which would be VERY hard to enforce in this situation, or in any situation to be honest.

[bieber]

I don't agree with the practice at all.

Why? If you post something on the internet, you've acknowledged that you want it to be visible by the world at large, so as long as you're properly credited, why does it matter where someone sees the image?

[ibdb]

Why? If you post something on the internet, you've acknowledged that you want it to be visible by the world at large, so as long as you're properly credited, why does it matter where someone sees the image?
Not speaking for anyone but me -- If I post a shot of my son playing t-ball, and someone then includes that shot in an article/blog about abusive sports coaches, I wouldn't be amused. It may be an extreme example, but it's easy to think of similar ideas -- a landscape photograph used by an extremist environmental group whose politics you abhor; a family shot used by a politician whose election you oppose; a pet photograph used by a PETA like group that makes your skin crawl. Being visible and being credited properly doesn't ensure that your creation is displayed in a context that you approve of or are comfortable with.

And for the original poster -- they're trying to sell their images. Having someone, without any approval, appropriate their images to publicize their own site could diminish the value of the image to potential buyers.

[liza]

Why? If you post something on the internet, you've acknowledged that you want it to be visible by the world at large, so as long as you're properly credited, why does it matter where someone sees the image?

Because it's MY damned image and no one has the right to use it without my permission. That's why. :evil:

I get sick of this Flickr mentality that entitles the world to something that I created and that I own. If someone wants to post an image on a blog, they can post their own.

Sorry. Pet peeve.

[bieber]

Because it's MY damned image and no one has the right to use it without my permission. That's why. :evil:

If you're that protective of it, don't put it on the Internet. If I have some sort of vested interest in an image financially, I'll take necessary steps to protect it, including keeping all but a really small copy off the internet. Otherwise, though, I'm not going to bother posting it somewhere if the public at large isn't going to be free to use it to the fullest possible extent; a look-but-don't-touch policy is just silly...

[ibdb]

Bieber -- So, does this mean you post all your images with a "public domain" license? Or do you have some restrictions on the use of your images?

I already know the answer to the question, or I wouldn't be asking, and I see that you've chosen to put some restrictions on the distribution/redistribution of your images. Others here have decided to put a different set of restrictions on the use of their images. Why are their restrictions any less valid than the ones you've selected?

[bieber]

Mine won't keep you from doing anything you want with the image, so long as you credit me and allow anyone else who wants to do the same. Commercial, private, whatever; just don't try to lock down the image. Even if the terms did try to prevent any type of reuse, what good does it do to try and keep someone from reposting one of your images on their website. You're not realistically going to get anything out of it unless you waste a ton of time pursuing the matter...

[ibdb]

Mine won't keep you from doing anything you want with the image, so long as you credit me and allow anyone else who wants to do the same. Commercial, private, whatever; just don't try to lock down the image.
Actually, it does. It won't allow me to use the image in the ways I suggested earlier, to suggest that you endorse a position that I support. But that still doesn't answer the question of why the restrictions that you have selected are valid, but the restrictions that the original poster selected (and had violated) are any less so.

There are different levels of creative commons licenses because creators of the art want to have them. If it was truly a case of, "it's posted therefore it's free game," there would be no need for anything other than public domain licensing, and you've already decided that for your own art, that's not enough.

[bieber]

Actually, it does. It won't allow me to use the image in the ways I suggested earlier, to suggest that you endorse a position that I support.

Why not? As long as you adhere to the licensing terms while doing so, I'm fine with it, and I have no legal recourse to stop you; the only reason I don't public domain things is so that no one can make some minor modifications to the image, and then claim sole usage rights to them.

Lets not get too heated here, though. It's not like you eat babies if you restrict your images, it just strikes me as unneccessarily selfish, and a little silly.

[EnronRocks]

Well according to bieber, if I post something on the internet the public should be able to use it as they choose. Your Deviant Art is my next stop.

BTW, in your arguments I hope you are not using the Creative Commons website as a example, it has many loopholes in it.

[bieber]

Well according to bieber, if I post something on the internet the public should be able to use it as they choose. Your Deviant Art is my next stop.


Go ahead, they're all CC licensed, about as liberal as it gets with copyleft intact. I really do practice what I preach. The nice thing about digital media is that it's not like once you've made a copy of my image for your purposes, I can't use it anymore for mine. We can both use the image as much as we want, and both benefit from it, without either of us losing anything. For me to tell you that no, only I should reap the benefits of it, because it's mine, and I made it, just strikes me as silly. It'd be one thing if I shot it exclusively for one person, as a job, but that's not the case with anything I throw up on the internet; those are all photographs that I take just because I enjoy taking photographs.

[ibdb]

Why not? As long as you adhere to the licensing terms while doing so, I'm fine with it, and I have no legal recourse to stop you...
From the Creative Commons, Share Alike License terms you've selected for (at least the random ones I selected) your images:


Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
It's my interpretation that the terms you have selected specifically prohibit the examples I provided, and would give you legal recourse should I use one of your images in a way that violated your terms. Whether you choose to pursue that recourse or not is another matter.

I understand you have taken a more liberal approach to the licensing of your images. The original poster makes money off of theirs, and has, therefore, taken a more restrictive approach to copyright. Liza, who doesn't need me to defend or speak for her, also believes that using one of her images for your benefit (even with attribution), just because it can be done, doesn't make it legal or morally right. I would suspect their position and mine is much more widely shared among the photographers who frequent POTN.

The original poster is trying to sell an image. To do so, they have it visible. They could make the image smaller, splash a huge watermark across it, or make it otherwise unappealing -- but at some point I'd think that would adversely affect their ability to sell their images. And any extreme that they go to would be to prevent people from doing something that is already illegal. It's not about being selfish; it's about preserving the rights to which they are already entitled.

[kona77]

For me to tell you that no, only I should reap the benefits of it, because it's mine, and I made it, just strikes me as silly.
bieber,
That is your call with your work. That is NOT your call with others work.
With your logic why can't someone just take a picture of someting I have printed or take a picture of a piece of famouse art and print it?


Because it's MY damned image and no one has the right to use it without my permission. That's why.
Liza,
I agree with you 100%. Well spoken.:)

[freaking102]

The "offending" site is just a blog.
Don't worry, be happy.

[R_Metzel]

Yes, I would be pissed and contact the offender.

Bieber, you need to stop all the "free rights to everything" preaching all the time. If thats what you stand for and believe in, good for you! But this is a photography forum, not a free software, flash is bad, everything should be free, the man is going down forum!

While I do notice you are quite intelligent for your age, and commend you on that, you need to stop turn every thread into a preaching forum for what you believe. If you have an opinion on something-state it and move on. Quite straying from the OP's problem to preach your agenda.

The OP takes pictures. Makes money off those pictures. So why is it so wrong when the OP finds out someone is stealing her work. Following your logic, it is ok for me to invent something and make money off of it. It would then be ok for you, to take that same invention and claim it as your own in hopes of making money or recognition. That is not how things work. That is illegal and unconstitutional. That is also highly immoral and very shady. Things like this are why people go to jail. Just because I buy a new lawn mower and leave it on the side of the house in view of the public, does not give you the right to come and take it and say it is yours. Yes, that is a different concept and context, but the same principle.

We get that you are down for everything being open source and free rights, but in reality, 90% of the things you use are run by software you have no control over. And what happens if you go to college? Are you going to not do an assignment that requires you to use software that isn't open source? Do you use a cell phone? A camera? Watch TV? All run by closed off software. When you use electricity, software runs the grids that you have no access to. I understand your opinion, and respect it, but this is not the place to push it on people.

You are 17! Have some fun! Quit worrying about every little thing in life!;)

[ibdb]

The "offending" site is just a blog.
Don't worry, be happy.
Okay - so how many people can view the blog before you're not okay with it? 10? 100? 1,000? 10,000? 100,000? What if it's just a local newspaper? Just a local TV station? Just a statewide advertisement? Just for distribution on the West Coast? Just for an American audience?

I really don't understand the relativistic interpretations here. Either you have protections for your images or you do not. You can't be a little bit pregnant.

[freaking102]

Okay - so how many people can view the blog before you're not okay with it? 10? 100? 1,000? 10,000? 100,000?
I really don't understand the relativistic interpretations here. Either you have protections for your images or you do not. You can't be a little bit pregnant.

Blog writers are usually not using your images for profit, so why care if they use your image? Your time would be better spent worrying about somebody using your image fro profit and not payinh you. Ultimately, the free form side of the web (e.g. blogs) is entertaining, and if you don't want the free form world using your work, then don't be free form yourself (don't post your images on the web)

peace out!

[blackshadow]

Blog writers are usually not using your images for profit, so why care if they use your image? Your time would be better spent worrying about somebody using your image fro profit and not payinh you. Ultimately, the free form side of the web (e.g. blogs) is entertaining, and if you don't want the free form world using your work, then don't be free form yourself (don't post your images on the web)

peace out!

So what?

They are still violating your copyright. I'm sure that if a polite email was sent saying I really like your photo of bla bla bla to use in my blog would that be OK? Most photographers would probably agree if they are properly credited for the image.

What if it was a blog advocating terrorism or paedophilia? It's still only a blog right?

[ibdb]

Blog writers are usually not using your images for profit, so why care if they use your image? Your time would be better spent worrying about somebody using your image fro profit and not payinh you. Ultimately, the free form side of the web (e.g. blogs) is entertaining, and if you don't want the free form world using your work, then don't be free form yourself (don't post your images on the web)

peace out!
OK - so you don't care about how many people might view the image in a single blog in a context you can't control. How many blogs would you be okay with using your image before you have a problem with it? Are you going to check each one on a regular basis to ensure that you're still okay with how they're using it?

Again, this doesn't strike me as a shades of grey issue. I completely understand the original poster's concerns about losing control of their image. Large corporations protect their trademarks vigorously so as not to diminish their value. Let someone abuse it long enough, and you lose your legal claim. This image has value to the poster, and they wish to protect that value by controlling where and how the image is displayed.

And to the OP -- you might want to look at http://www.denunciar.org.br/twiki/bin/view/SaferNet.WebHomeEn . They have a contact address on the page that may be able to help you get in contact with someone at the Fotolog site. The "denuciar" group is targeting internet crimes, but may also be able to help with copyright issues.