Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk
Thread started 08 Sep 2016 (Thursday) 08:05
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Small Business uses photo and mocks the photographer's copyright

 
Jethr0
Senior Member
Jethr0's Avatar
Joined Aug 2012
ON, Canada
Sep 11, 2016 16:03 |  #31

Disclaimer: I'm not a pro. Photography is a hobby for me.

I have had a number of photographs purloined from google searches and Flickr etc. I had my easily removed watermark in the bottom right corner cropped out. The first couple of times I was flattered. Then after a few times I reacted to it and had a range of responses that went from apologetic all the way up to total douchebag. I started sending invoices for what I arbitrarily deemed market value for the image(s). A couple actually paid. Most of them removed the image. Whatever the result I accepted it. The send an invoice tactic was suggested by a lawyer friend.

The moral of the story?

As long as we post up awesome photographs and make it easy to just take high resolution/quality pictures with a right click and a 4 second MS Paint edit, people will just take them. Just like they do with movies, music....anything they can find online that is available freely in a digital format. Don't take it personally. It's a cultural thing. The internet makes it easy for people to be douches.

Maybe if 'everyone' put larger centered partially transparent watermarks on the images they posted online....it would curtail this free-for-all. Maybe. I stopped posting everything to Flickr. I added image harvesting countermeasures on my site (not foolproof). I stopped posting all the pics I take, showing only a smaller sample set. As a result, I have had much more requests to purchase images/sets of images.


7DMKII/Sigma 10-20/Sigma 24-70 2.8/Sigma 70-200 2.8/Sigma 150-600
www.jefflowe.ca (external link)
Instagram: https://www.instagram.​com/jefflowe.ca (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Dan ­ Marchant
Goldmember
Dan Marchant's Avatar
Joined Oct 2011
Where I'm from is unimportant, it's where I'm going that counts.
Sep 12, 2016 03:16 |  #32

Colin Glover wrote in post #18124261 (external link)
....Now would it be fair to assume that a person reusing one of these would have no way of knowing if it isn't free without asking the photographer?

No it would be incorrect to assume that.
Copyright law is very clear. You can't use a copyrighted image without permission from the copyright holder. That means that the default position is you can't use it unless you have got permission or you know (rather than assume) that it is in the public domain.


Dan Marchant
Website/blog: danmarchant.com (external link)
Instagram: @dan_marchant (external link)
Gear Canon 5DIII + Fuji X-T2 + lenses + a plastic widget I found in the camera box.

LOG IN TO REPLY
BlakeC
THREAD ­ STARTER
"Dad was a meat cutter"
BlakeC's Avatar
Joined Jul 2014
West Michigan, USA
Sep 12, 2016 07:20 |  #33

Dan Marchant wrote in post #18125101 (external link)
No it would be incorrect to assume that.
Copyright law is very clear. You can't use a copyrighted image without permission from the copyright holder. That means that the default position is you can't use it unless you have got permission or you know (rather than assume) that it is in the public domain.

THIS

PLUS, people keep referring to the missing watermark. The watermark doesn't matter. You don't need to watermark your photo to protect it. It is already protected. Just because you do not see a watermark does not mean it is okay to use.


Blake C
BlakeC-Photography.com (external link)
Follow Me on Facebook (external link) , Instagram (external link), or Google+ (external link)
80D |70D | SL1 - Σ 18-35 1.8 ART, Σ 50-100 1.8 ART, Σ 17-50 2.8, Canon 24 2.8 Pancake, Canon 50 1.8 STM, Canon 10-18 STM

LOG IN TO REPLY
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
That's my line!
Left Handed Brisket's Avatar
Joined Jun 2011
The Uwharrie Mts, NC
Post has been edited over 1 year ago by Left Handed Brisket.
Sep 12, 2016 07:57 |  #34

apparently the photog made a post saying that people could use the image.

boobie pic at the link:
https://www.facebook.c​om ...921059716/?type=3&t​heater (external link)

" ***Many of you have contacted me to ask if you can share my work to raise awareness and celebrate mamas -- you are more than welcome to share any and all of them!!!*** "

i fully realize that appropriate image use is more nuanced than that simple post, but at the same time, one shouldn't make such a vague all encompassing post and then expect average joes to get the nuance.


PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Formerly he's gone before apostrophe-gate | Not in gear database: Canon 70-210 3.5-4.5, Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 2x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

LOG IN TO REPLY
BlakeC
THREAD ­ STARTER
"Dad was a meat cutter"
BlakeC's Avatar
Joined Jul 2014
West Michigan, USA
Sep 12, 2016 08:21 |  #35

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18125228 (external link)
apparently the photog made a post saying that people could use the image.

boobie pic at the link:
https://www.facebook.c​om ...921059716/?type=3&t​heater (external link)

" ***Many of you have contacted me to ask if you can share my work to raise awareness and celebrate mamas -- you are more than welcome to share any and all of them!!!*** "

i fully realize that appropriate image use is more nuanced than that simple post, but at the same time, one shouldn't make such a vague all encompassing post and then expect average joes to get the nuance.

I saw that too, but i know what she meant - Share it on other pages with attribution to her, not take it from another source on google and use it as your own for advertising. A business owner should really know that too.


Blake C
BlakeC-Photography.com (external link)
Follow Me on Facebook (external link) , Instagram (external link), or Google+ (external link)
80D |70D | SL1 - Σ 18-35 1.8 ART, Σ 50-100 1.8 ART, Σ 17-50 2.8, Canon 24 2.8 Pancake, Canon 50 1.8 STM, Canon 10-18 STM

LOG IN TO REPLY
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
That's my line!
Left Handed Brisket's Avatar
Joined Jun 2011
The Uwharrie Mts, NC
Sep 12, 2016 08:30 |  #36

BlakeC wrote in post #18125252 (external link)
A business owner should really know that too.

hmm, i'm much more cynical in regards to the average intelligence of the human race.

:twisted:

"Think about how stupid the average person is, now consider that half of them are more stupid than that!"

paraphrased from George Carlin, of course.

.

.

.


Not that people would be beating down my door for images, but i don't share much on line for the simple fact that I don't want to have to deal with this stuff.


PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Formerly he's gone before apostrophe-gate | Not in gear database: Canon 70-210 3.5-4.5, Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 2x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

LOG IN TO REPLY
BlakeC
THREAD ­ STARTER
"Dad was a meat cutter"
BlakeC's Avatar
Joined Jul 2014
West Michigan, USA
Post has been edited over 1 year ago by BlakeC.
Sep 12, 2016 08:50 |  #37

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18125265 (external link)
hmm, i'm much more cynical in regards to the average intelligence of the human race.

:twisted:

"Think about how stupid the average person is, now consider that half of them are more stupid than that!"

paraphrased from George Carlin, of course.

.

.

.


Not that people would be beating down my door for images, but i don't share much on line for the simple fact that I don't want to have to deal with this stuff.

I have the same expectations as you when it comes to the intelligence of the average person. I just don't think it is a valid excuse to steal. AND if he truly did not know what he did wrong until she pointed it out, then he should have just taken it down or paid to license it. The whole thing would be fine if he hadn't chosen to be a D about it.
I would be on his side if he complied and she still threatened him. But she was nice about it and he tried to turn her into the jerk.


Blake C
BlakeC-Photography.com (external link)
Follow Me on Facebook (external link) , Instagram (external link), or Google+ (external link)
80D |70D | SL1 - Σ 18-35 1.8 ART, Σ 50-100 1.8 ART, Σ 17-50 2.8, Canon 24 2.8 Pancake, Canon 50 1.8 STM, Canon 10-18 STM

LOG IN TO REPLY
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
That's my line!
Left Handed Brisket's Avatar
Joined Jun 2011
The Uwharrie Mts, NC
Sep 12, 2016 08:57 as a reply to BlakeC's post |  #38

do doubt the guy is a jerk.

i mean, they don't even have Moose in Ireland, duh.


PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Formerly he's gone before apostrophe-gate | Not in gear database: Canon 70-210 3.5-4.5, Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 2x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

LOG IN TO REPLY
Cleveland-Wedding-Photographer
Hatchling
Cleveland-Wedding-Photographer's Avatar
9 posts
Joined Sep 2016
Sep 12, 2016 09:19 |  #39

This is ridiculous - I stumbled on this through one of my wedding photography Facebook pages. How is the owner of a business (ANY BUSINESS) so inconsiderate toward another business owner? My only thought was: I wonder if its possible that maybe this was a Social Media manager (someone who gets paid to represent the company on social media) who doesn't realize how big of a deal this will ultimately become...


Shawn Moreau
Cleveland, Colorado, Destination Wedding Photographer (external link)
Moreau & Company Wedding Photography
Located in Cleveland, Ohio

LOG IN TO REPLY
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
That's my line!
Left Handed Brisket's Avatar
Joined Jun 2011
The Uwharrie Mts, NC
Sep 12, 2016 09:50 |  #40

Cleveland-Wedding-Photographer wrote in post #18125316 (external link)
How is the owner of a business (ANY BUSINESS) so inconsiderate toward another business owner?

you might find this interesting.

http://photography-on-the.net ...read.php?t=1454115&​page=1

i don't know how it ultimately ended, but it wasn't pretty.


PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Formerly he's gone before apostrophe-gate | Not in gear database: Canon 70-210 3.5-4.5, Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 2x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

LOG IN TO REPLY
banquetbear
Goldmember
banquetbear's Avatar
Joined Apr 2010
Wellington, New Zealand
Sep 12, 2016 17:46 |  #41

Cleveland-Wedding-Photographer wrote in post #18125316 (external link)
This is ridiculous - I stumbled on this through one of my wedding photography Facebook pages. How is the owner of a business (ANY BUSINESS) so inconsiderate toward another business owner? My only thought was: I wonder if its possible that maybe this was a Social Media manager (someone who gets paid to represent the company on social media) who doesn't realize how big of a deal this will ultimately become...

...read my post earlier in the thread. "Upsetting people" is this cafe's marketing plan. He has said that if vegans eat at his restaurant he would poison them. He offered a "car" as a prize for a competition and gave away a picture of a car. His original target of this troll was "breast-feeding mums": but photographers decided that they wanted to give him more entertainment. The "bigger the deal" the better for this cafe owner.


www.bigmark.co.nzexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Tom Reichner's Avatar
Joined Dec 2008
Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
Sep 17, 2016 13:48 |  #42

banquetbear wrote in post #18125830 (external link)
"Upsetting people" is this cafe's marketing plan. He has said that if vegans eat at his restaurant he would poison them. He offered a "car" as a prize for a competition and gave away a picture of a car. His original target of this troll was "breast-feeding mums": but photographers decided that they wanted to give him more entertainment. The "bigger the deal" the better for this cafe owner.


Exactly right, Bear.

This guy's m.o. is to be as offensive as possible - that is the technique he uses to draw in a certain type of following. He takes things that are intimate, private, or dignified and then just rips them and mocks them publicly on his website. This is very intentional, and there are a lot of people who think that type of blatant disrespect and even law-breaking is hilarious. Kind of like the same technique Howard Stern uses, only taken a bit further. I understand what he is doing here, and why he is doing it.

I don't think he is stupid, as he seems to realize that this stuff draws people to his site, and that there is practically zero chance that there would ever be any legal consequences to his blatant copyright violation. There are lots of laws that are not enforced, and some people glory in blatantly breaking these laws. And guess what - they get away with it 100% of the time, as will this guy.

.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "peace of mind", NOT "piece of mind".

LOG IN TO REPLY
aezoss
Senior Member
Joined Nov 2013
Sep 21, 2016 02:52 |  #43

Nothing new. The Elbow Room in Vancouver has been abusing customers for years. It's a marketing strategy that can work if executed correctly. In TER's case the menu has been described as legendary and the vitriolic atmosphere an acquired taste.

The guy in Ireland is just screwing with people and, unsurprisingly, it's fueling his business. It's ingenious. The more provocative he gets the more social media does the hard work of expanding his brand for him.

It puzzles me that people lack the situational awareness to deal with these things. The guy's posts told her everything she needed to know about the reaction she would get. This personality type isn't coming quietly. Even if he intrinsically agrees with the copyright claim his public persona isn't about to let a good opportunity to generate controversy go to waste. I'd venture a guess everything Paulie does is calculated to maximize reactions, that includes cropping out watermarks. He set a trap and she walked right into it.

He's rolling the dice with Facebook's TOS but legally I doubt he's at risk. Worst case he'll Richard Prince the image and make a mint in the process.

The photographer should have played his game, traded some barbs and licensed the image for a breakfast IOU. She would have come out looking like a good sport at the very least.

Lee




LOG IN TO REPLY
KFrost1
Mostly Lurking
16 posts
Joined Sep 2016
Sep 23, 2016 03:51 |  #44

I think this response is absolutely outrageous. Not only do they use her image without her permission, but they then mock her and her photography when she politely asks them to remove it. I think their overly sarcastic reaction is totally unwarranted. Can only parrot what others have said: why did they use it if they think it is so rediculous.

This kind of thing makes me so angry, especially because they don't seem to understand that it is not about her losing "millions of dollars" but rather having respect for someone elses work. It seems to me she was only asking to be credited, hardly outrageous.

As for copyright laws, I think this article (external link) is quite a good overview. So important to know your rights and stand up for them.

I personally do not feel that we have a right to free art, whether that be music or photography, and we certainly don't have the right to simply claim ownership of someone else's work without even a nod in their direction.

Just my two cents....




LOG IN TO REPLY
digirebelva
Goldmember
digirebelva's Avatar
Joined Mar 2008
Appomattox, Virginia
Sep 23, 2016 07:30 |  #45

BlakeC wrote in post #18125205 (external link)
The watermark doesn't matter. You don't need to watermark your photo to protect it. It is already protected. Just because you do not see a watermark does not mean it is okay to use.

Actually the watermark DOES matter quite a bit...Removing it totally removes the "Innocent Use Defense"..the "I didn't know I couldn't use it without permission". It's also a separate offense under the DMCA, with its own $$$ fines..


EOS 6d, 7d, 50d, Tokina 11-16, Tokina 16-28, Sigma 70-200mm F/2.8, Sigma 17-50 F/2.8, Canon 24-70mm F/2.8L, Canon 70-200 F/2.8L, Mixed Speedlites and other stuff.

When it ceases to be fun, it will be time to walk away
Websiteexternal link | Fine Art Americaexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

7,082 views & 32 likes for this thread
Small Business uses photo and mocks the photographer's copyright
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00436 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.08s
Latest registered member is Thwarp
831 guests, 412 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016