Photo Stolen and Reposted

[crayfish13]

A friend of mine sent a link today of one of my skateboarding photos which had been resposted on some spanish photo website with the user who posted it claiming it as their photo and saying it was shot with a Kodak v550 which it was not. I not sure what action to take, at the moment I trying to contact the person who did this and ask them where they got the photo from. This is not my first experience with photo theft.

So im wondering what action to take.

Heres the link to the site http://www.fotolog.com/skateplace/56934290

And my original copy

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2171/2481943894_a207e228be_o.jpg


The skater in the photo is one of my friends who was the one who actually sent me the link after on of his skater friends from spain sent it to him.

Im starting to wonder it flickr and deviantart and site like that are really worth it in the end. And was wondering if anyone know any ways to track your photos I guess the only way is to put a big watermark across it.

[motion_projekt]

have you heard of tin-eye?

give that a try.


try copyrighting your photos too. like actually applying for a copyright. that way, they actually can get in legal trouble. right now even though you have the original, its just here-say.

my humble $0.02.

EDIT:
i also checked out your flickr. change your settings so that people cannot view the larger versions of your images.

[imahawki]

You don't have to "apply" for copyrights, its not like a patent. A copyright is automatic. And even then, they only get in trouble if you successfully sue them in court, an unlikely scenario.

[hawkeye60]

The site shows who posted it. Tell them to remove it. Also the the help link on the site allows you to email them and complain. Maybe they will remove it.

[Sports_Dude]

Just tell them that you are the person in the picture and that you didn't authorize them to use the stolen picture.

[crayfish13]

Just finished emailing her asking where she took the photo. Im interested how she will reply.

[jgrussell]

What's really funny is the poster didn't have the sense to strip the EXIF data. It still shows Canon 30D at the camera. So you won't have any trouble proving this isn't the poster's shot.

[Livinthalife]

Are you sure they didn't just the same exact photo ;) JK
you should feel flattered first of all:)
I would most certainly contact them or the photo hosting site about the issue. It doesn't appear they are making any money off the shot though. But I would highly reccomend putting some water mark on your shots.

[motion_projekt]

You don't have to "apply" for copyrights, its not like a patent. A copyright is automatic. And even then, they only get in trouble if you successfully sue them in court, an unlikely scenario.

You do.

http://www.sportsshooter.com/special_feature/2002_luau_video/rickman_biz/rickman3.html

watch this video and subsequent videos.


and where do you get your information from? think about what you say before you say it. there are some fallacies in your statement. :)

[Moppie]

You do.

http://www.sportsshooter.com/special_feature/2002_luau_video/rickman_biz/rickman3.html

watch this video and subsequent videos.


and where do you get your information from? think about what you say before you say it. there are some fallacies in your statement. :)


Remember there are different rules for copyright in different parts of the world.

Anything I create for example is automatically protected (unless an employment or similar contract says otherwise) simply because of the laws in the country I live in.

[motion_projekt]

Remember there are different rules for copyright in different parts of the world.

Anything I create for example is automatically protected (unless an employment or similar contract says otherwise) simply because of the laws in the country I live in.

this is true. i am however stating what is true for where i live. it's better safe then sorry. i will however consult my friend who is a media law attorney on this matter.

[neil_r]

Why would someone do that?

I can almost understand if there was a buck in it but to claim that you took a picture that you did not just for the kudos is almost too sad for words

[andrew748]

Why would someone do that?

I can almost nderstand if there was a buck in it but to claim that you took a picture that you did not just for the kudos is almost too sad for words


aye

what a loser:rolleyes:

i hope it works out for you OP

[pennypue]

Jamie, contact the site that it is hosted on. Request that she be banned. Let them know that the photo was taken with a Canon, NOT a Kodak. Also let them know that the EXIF data is attached to the photo and still has YOUR FULL NAME in it.

She's 24 years old, at least according to her profile on the site.....:rolleyes:
I'm afraid that she might just take your photo elsewhere and post it as her own. If you really wanted to agitate her you could post comments on her photo threads letting everyone on there that knows her that the photo is stolen. A few links to EXIF viewers for download ought to really make your point.

[imahawki]

Sorry, in the US you do not have to "apply" for a copyright. Works are automatically protected.

[soccersnaps]

same here in the uk, steady on there KN...........

[motion_projekt]

Sorry, in the US you do not have to "apply" for a copyright. Works are automatically protected.

i stand corrected then. i apologize. i was however making a point that what Mr. Rickman talks about that video is quite useful.

take a gander at that video.

[_aravena]

Let's all sign up and leave comments on how it was taken with a 30D?

[motion_projekt]

Let's all sign up and leave comments on how it was taken with a 30D?

lets!

[ooo]

If someone signs me up an account I will post =D

Anyways, my photo has been stole from my flickr before and I just stopped allowing users to view big versions. I just left it alone, I mean I do photography for a hobby, I'm not making money off it.

[MJPhotos24]

i stand corrected then. i apologize. i was however making a point that what Mr. Rickman talks about that video is quite useful.

take a gander at that video.
Very good video for people to watch, seen it before and what he says is you get more for copyright protecting your images. Happened in the NFL, some company stole a photogs image using it on billboards, $500,000 law suit.

Never a good idea to "let it go", hobby or pro.

[_aravena]

If someone signs me up an account I will post =D

Anyways, my photo has been stole from my flickr before and I just stopped allowing users to view big versions. I just left it alone, I mean I do photography for a hobby, I'm not making money off it.

But ya just may without any real effort ;)

[Vascilli]

Watermark your photos from now on.

[T2000]

FYI,

http://info.fotolog.com/terms

See under the section entitled "copyright infringement."

[T2000]

"You do.
http://www.sportsshooter.com/special.../rickman3.html."

No, you don't.

The reason that most people think you don't have to do anything to own the copyright after you create an image is because, well, you don't have to do anything to own the copyright after you create the image.

Basis for above statement: Section 102 of the Copyright Act which reads, in part:

"Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed..."

The videos guys underlying point (you should register your copyrights) is taken though. There are good reasons to register. He's just speaking loosely and mixing up ownership of copyright with registration of copyright.

[motion_projekt]

"You do.
http://www.sportsshooter.com/special.../rickman3.html."

No, you don't.

The reason that most people think you don't have to do anything to own the copyright after you create an image is because, well, you don't have to do anything to own the copyright after you create the image.

Basis for above statement: Section 102 of the Copyright Act which reads, in part:

"Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed..."

The videos guys underlying point (you should register your copyrights) is taken though. There are good reasons to register. He's just speaking loosely and mixing up ownership of copyright with registration of copyright.

make sure to read all the posts. :P i said i stand corrected.

[T2000]

I know. I did.

I was noting that the guy makes a good underlying point despite making some incorrect statements. And also citing the statute in case anyone reading wants something more concrete.

[Valucolso]

i decided to do some digging and found this on the US copyright website on their FAQ...

When is my work protected?
Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

Why should I register my work if copyright protection is automatic?
Registration is recommended for a number of reasons. Many choose to register their works because they wish to have the facts of their copyright on the public record and have a certificate of registration. Registered works may be eligible for statutory damages and attorney's fees in successful litigation. Finally, if registration occurs within 5 years of publication, it is considered prima facie evidence in a court of law. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration” and Circular 38b, Highlights of Copyright Amendments Contained in the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), on non-U.S. works.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#mywork

So, if you want to fight it in court... fill out a form hehe :)

-Josh

[ibdb]

What's really funny is the poster didn't have the sense to strip the EXIF data. It still shows Canon 30D at the camera. So you won't have any trouble proving this isn't the poster's shot.
Saw that, too. :rolleyes::lol::rolleyes:

FYI,

http://info.fotolog.com/terms

See under the section entitled "copyright infringement."
This is not the kind of thing where you're going to win $$$. Report it to the site using the link mentioned above here and they'll act on it. If they don't, then you might have some sort of additional cause for action, but I don't see that as likely.

It might be a good idea to take a few screenshots of the violation for use in advancing your case with the host, and should the host be slow to respond.

[T2000]

"Report it to the site using the link mentioned above here and they'll act on it. If they don't...."

Don't think you have to worry about the don't part. If they don't they lose their immunity from liability. This particular site even helpfully spells out all the required parts of the take down notice.

Certain sites will ban users that subject the site to repeated DMCA take-down notices. No one wants to do business with a serial infringer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OCILLA#Requirements_to_obtain_the_safe_harbor

[amfoto1]

Sorry, in the US you do not have to "apply" for a copyright. Works are automatically protected.

In the U.S.... Or any other country that signed the Bern Convention and similar agreements... Which is most countries in the world.

You own the copyright, period.

Register it to have stronger protections, but that has to happen within 3 months of 'first publication'. (Opinions vary a bit on what constitutes 'first publication'... At present, posting it on a website typically doesn't. Selling it to a magazine that prints it in one of their issues certainly would.)

Ugly as they are, watermarks are your friends. I hate em, but they are becoming a necessity. Done right they serve to promote you and your photography, since people will still steal some images anyway.

Also, you should be including copyright and contact info in the metadata (EXIF) of each and every image you post. Good thing it's still on the stolen photo, and that you didn't 'save for the web' yourself, which strips off EXIF.

Is there a blog on the website with the stolen photo?

If so, I'd immediately post a comment there about how sad it is someone has stolen and posted your photo, is passing it off as their own and to clarify what was actually used to take the photo (include a link to the photo and another to your website... might as well get some free advertising out of this.)

Even if you had your copyright registered, seems to me pursuing an infringement case internationally would be a real uphill battle.

[neil_r]

How will this proposition about Orphan works being fair game on the net play out, or is it just an urban myth?

[MJPhotos24]

It's not a myth, it says all they have to do is try to find the owner, which who knows how hard they'll actually look. Register your images.

[amfoto1]

Orphan Works should not effect the copyright of works that are registered. That should be the first place they check... At least for a few years or until another resource is created.

From what I understand, there are several proposed methods of searching and compiling a reference of registered works now under consideration.

It really sounds to me like the government's main motivation is to spin off the responsibility and privatize copyright registration. That may or may not happen. There's an awful lot still to be decided.

Call me paranoid. I get a bit nervous when I see who the 'real' supporters behind Orphan Works are, such as Getty Images and Corbis/Microsoft. There must be something potentially very profitable in Orphan Works for those 600 lb. gorillas, or they wouldn't come out so strongly in support of it.

Other 'supporters' like schools and museums seem to me more to be show pieces included in hopes of putting slapping some lipstick on the pig, in hope we won't notice it's still a pig.

[ANGUS]

Sorry, in the US you do not have to "apply" for a copyright. Works are automatically protected.

Sorry, not true. You have some protection automatically but for full copyright you must register it.

[T2000]

"At present, posting it on a website typically doesn't."

Which means that if you post on a website you don't get a three month window (if you want the "stronger protections").

You would have to register, in the case of such unpublished work, prior to the infringement.

Correct ?

[digirebelva]

Sorry, not true. You have some protection automatically but for full copyright you must register it.

Not true

Copyright Is Automatic?


Yes, thanks to the Berne Convention. At the moment of creation, when the artwork is "fixed" in some tangible form, copyright applies automatically. For a photographer, when you press the shutter release you are making a photo and gaining copyright to that photo at the same time. You don't have to declare copyright or file any paperwork. It is yours to keep until you explicitly give it away or you die (copyright expires after you, the duration in the U.S. is the author's lifetime plus 70 years).

That said, there is an advantage to filing (http://www.photosecrets.com/tips.copyright.html#how)for copyright. If a dispute arises, you can get punitive damages (in addition to compensatory damages) if a form was filed before
infringement.
Your copyright is valid in all countries that adhere to the Berne Convention.
You can still get damages without filing, just not as much..

[ANGUS]

Not true

Copyright Is Automatic?

Yes, thanks to the Berne Convention. At the moment of creation, when the artwork is "fixed" in some tangible form, copyright applies automatically. For a photographer, when you press the shutter release you are making a photo and gaining copyright to that photo at the same time. You don't have to declare copyright or file any paperwork. It is yours to keep until you explicitly give it away or you die (copyright expires after you, the duration in the U.S. is the author's lifetime plus 70 years).

That said, there is an advantage to filing (http://www.photosecrets.com/tips.copyright.html#how)for copyright. If a dispute arises, you can get punitive damages (in addition to compensatory damages) if a form was filed before
infringement.
Your copyright is valid in all countries that adhere to the Berne Convention.
You can still get damages without filing, just not as much..


Excuse me, I said you have some rights (Compensation) without a file but MORE (Punitive Damages) with a form.

[T2000]

"Yes, thanks to the Berne Convention."

That is incorrect.

You must have not only missed section 102(a) of the Copyright Act you must have missed this part when you read it (you did read it, right ?)

Congress wishing to leave no doubt about the effect of Benre:

"Section 104 (c) Effect of Berne Convention. — No right or interest in a work eligible for protection under this title may be claimed by virtue of, or in reliance upon, the provisions of the Berne Convention, or the adherence of the United States thereto. Any rights in a work eligible for protection under this title that derive from this title, other Federal or State statutes, or the common law, shall not be expanded or reduced by virtue of, or in reliance upon, the provisions of the Berne Convention, or the adherence of the United States thereto."

Consider that the 1976 Act went into effect when Carter was President and the US didn't sign on to Berne until Reagans second term. So you theory that in the US copyright exists automatically upon creation as a result of Berne and not as a result of the 1976 Act would require some star trek time manipulation thingy.

"If a dispute arises, you can get punitive damages (in addition to compensatory damages) if a form was filed before infringement."

That is incorrect well. But I am too tired from typing to spell out the reasons.

[T2000]

I probably should have added that getting past all the mumbo jumbo, you have a copyright when you create the work but like other posters have stated there are very good reasons to take the effort to register the with the US copyright office if you are really interested in protecting your rights.

[Spageddie]

One reason why I hesitate on posting photos on any thread.

[digirebelva]

Excuse me, I said you have some rights (Compensation) without a file but MORE (Punitive Damages) with a form.

I stand corrected ;)

[digirebelva]

One reason why I hesitate on posting photos on any thread.

As do I....:(

[neil_r]

take the effort to register the with the US copyright office if you are really interested in protecting your rights.

The OP is in Canada, the website that the stolen image was posted on was in Spain. Is the US Copyright Office really the place to register?

[MJPhotos24]

One reason why I hesitate on posting photos on any thread.
one reason they always have obtrusive watermarks.

[SlowBlink]

Infringement is one thing, stealing credit makes my skin crawl. I left a nice comment as "Stankorepulso" Hope he gets the message.

[blackshadow]

Send a DCMA take down notice to the web host. I do this regularly and it works.

Most recent example can be seen discussed in the thread at http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=601716

[Moppie]

The OP is in Canada, the website that the stolen image was posted on was in Spain. Is the US Copyright Office really the place to register?



Neil, I believe people maybe suffering from selective reading :lol::lol:

[T2000]

"Neil, I believe people maybe suffering from selective reading"

You two maybe.

The site the OP provided for the location of the infringed photo was:

http://www.fotolog.com/skateplace/56934290

Despite what the OP said it is not a site hosted on a Spanish based server nor is the company putting up the site (Fotolog) located in Spain.

Fotolog, a US subsidiary of a Spanish company, is located in NY and using a hosting company located in the US.

And if you read the posted replies you'd find that not only is Fotolog amenable to the receipt of DMCA take-down notices, they actually supply the reader with a helpful guide to preparing one, including the address of the appropriate party to receive it.

It is of no relevance to sending a DMCA notice where the OP resides. Nor (apart from the expense, which I am not minimizing) an impediment to bringing an action for infringement in the US.

And, yes, there are benefits to a Canadian national registering his work in the US Copyright Office. Same benefits as available to a US citizen.

[Box Brownie]

"Neil, I believe people maybe suffering from selective reading"

You two maybe.

The site the OP provided for the location of the infringed photo was:

http://www.fotolog.com/skateplace/56934290

Despite what the OP said it is not a site hosted on a Spanish based server nor is the company putting up the site (Fotolog) located in Spain.

Fotolog, a US subsidiary of a Spanish company, is located in NY and using a hosting company located in the US.

And if you read the posted replies you'd find that not only is Fotolog amenable to the receipt of DMCA take-down notices, they actually supply the reader with a helpful guide to preparing one, including the address of the appropriate party to receive it.

It is of no relevance to sending a DMCA notice where the OP resides. Nor (apart from the expense, which I am not minimizing) an impediment to bringing an action for infringement in the US.

And, yes, there are benefits to a Canadian national registering his work in the US Copyright Office. Same benefits as available to a US citizen.[/

Interesting, I appreciate that 'both' are in continental North America and I in the UK am not but can other non USA citizens also register their images and get such protection???

[T2000]

"can other non USA citizens also register their images and get such protection"

Knock yourself out --->

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-who.html#foreigners

Electronic filing:

http://www.copyright.gov/register/

[Box Brownie]

"can other non USA citizens also register their images and get such protection"

Knock yourself out --->

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-who.html#foreigners

Electronic filing:

http://www.copyright.gov/register/

Thanks for the pointer :D

[Floriantrojer.com]

edit:

Disregard, answered my own question :D

Thanks!

[gooble]

this is true. i am however stating what is true for where i live. it's better safe then sorry. i will however consult my friend who is a media law attorney on this matter.

In the U.S. the moment you depress the shutter and an image is captured that image is copyrighted by you. You have to do nothing else ever.

However if you want to be able to sue someone for infringing your copyright and be able to get damages and legal fees paid you need to have registered your copyright with the U.S. Library of Congress some amount of time before first publishing the work.

If you do not do this you will find it hard to get legal representation to pursue legal action and the most you could receive is something like what the market rate would be for use of the infringed work. In many cases it would cost more in legal fees than the use of the image is worth so it would not make sense monetarily to pursue legal action. The best you'll probably do is to get them to remove infringing works.

[motion_projekt]

In the U.S. the moment you depress the shutter and an image is captured that image is copyrighted by you. You have to do nothing else ever.

However if you want to be able to sue someone for infringing your copyright and be able to get damages and legal fees paid you need to have registered your copyright with the U.S. Library of Congress some amount of time before first publishing the work.

If you do not do this you will find it hard to get legal representation to pursue legal action and the most you could receive is something like what the market rate would be for use of the infringed work. In many cases it would cost more in legal fees than the use of the image is worth so it would not make sense monetarily to pursue legal action. The best you'll probably do is to get them to remove infringing works.

not sure if you read all the way through the thread, but i did say that i stand corrected.

[T2000]

"However if you want to be able to sue someone for infringing your copyright and be able to get damages and legal fees paid you need to have registered your copyright with the U.S. Library of Congress some amount of time before first publishing the work."

Incorrect.

If you want to seek statutory damages (you can file at anytime and seek actual damages) and attorney fees, you have a three month window from first publication.

This three month rule is in section 412(2) of the Copyright Act.

[gooble]

"However if you want to be able to sue someone for infringing your copyright and be able to get damages and legal fees paid you need to have registered your copyright with the U.S. Library of Congress some amount of time before first publishing the work."

Incorrect.

If you want to seek statutory damages (you can file at anytime and seek actual damages) and attorney fees, you have a three month window from first publication.

This three month rule is in section 412(2) of the Copyright Act.

I thought that was what I wrote, except that I wasn't using legalese. In the next paragraph I wrote

"If you do not do this you will find it hard to get legal representation to pursue legal action and the most you could receive is something like what the market rate would be for use of the infringed work. In many cases it would cost more in legal fees than the use of the image is worth so it would not make sense monetarily to pursue legal action. The best you'll probably do is to get them to remove infringing works."

Wouldn't the "market rate" that I mentioned be your actual damages?

[T2000]

Sorry if I was unclear that I was addressing the TIME to register.

What you wrote (emphasis added by me): "...some amount of time BEFORE first publishing the work."

The correct rule "..., you have a three month window from first publication." That is to say, perhaps more clearly, you have until three months AFTER you first publish the work.

And then I added: "This three month rule is in section 412(2) of the Copyright Act."

[vpnd]

You don't have to "apply" for copyrights, its not like a patent. A copyright is automatic. And even then, they only get in trouble if you successfully sue them in court, an unlikely scenario.


only if you register your print otherwise it is useless. You have copyrightautomatically by being the photographer, but it does no good unless it is registered.

[georgewerr]

The correct rule "..., you have a three month window from first publication." That is to say, perhaps more clearly, you have until three months AFTER you first publish the work.

Does this mean you need to register within three months before or after publication or anytime before and upto three months after

Thank you for any clarifcation

[neilwood32]

only if you register your print otherwise it is useless. You have copyrightautomatically by being the photographer, but it does no good unless it is registered.

You are incorrect- the copyright owner does still have statuatory protection for unregistered work but is limited in the amount of damages that can be claimed. This is limited to the normal market value.

If the image is registered, the copyright owner can then add damages and legal fees on top of the market value.

[T2000]

"Does this mean you need to register within three months before or after publication or anytime before and upto three months after"

For unpublished work, you can't recover statutory damages or attorney fees for any infringement of copyright commenced before the effective date of its registration.

For published work, you have until the date which is three months from the date of first publication of the work.

[adam8080]

I know this copyright stuff is confusing with all the if, ands, or, and buts, but I am eagerly awaiting the laws explained in full in plain English when we all here agree and figure them out!