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

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos The Business of Photography 
Thread started 09 Jan 2014 (Thursday) 11:32
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Don't steal photos from Google Searches: An expensive mistake

 
M_Six
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,500 posts
Gallery: 55 photos
Likes: 1316
Joined Dec 2010
Location: East Central IL
     
Jan 09, 2014 18:23 |  #16

Can't seem to get to the site. Did the story go viral or something?:confused:


Mark J.
Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
grayline
Member
Avatar
247 posts
Likes: 19
Joined Dec 2013
Location: Newnan Georgia
     
Jan 09, 2014 18:30 as a reply to  @ post 16592286 |  #17

I think its completly ludicrous that if there was no monitary gain from it....
Its Dumb.. I have one of my pictures on a guys website he stole off my website
Can I sue him?


Gear List :EOS 70D ,Sigma 50mm 1.4,Tamron 18-270, Canon 18-55,Canon HFM31,Canon SX280HS,Olympus E-10 ,

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scatterbrained
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,422 posts
Gallery: 217 photos
Best ofs: 11
Likes: 4120
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Chula Vista, CA
     
Jan 09, 2014 18:35 |  #18

grayline wrote in post #16592320 (external link)
I think its completly ludicrous that if there was no monitary gain from it....
Its Dumb.. .....

:confused: What exactly do you mean? If I steal your lawnmower am I absolved of guilt because I didn't make any money with it? The company was paid to provide content. It's how they earn their money. They chose to steal someone else' content to then provide to a client. Whether they made any money is irrelevant.


VanillaImaging.com (external link)"Vacuous images for the Vapid consumer"
500px (external link)
flickr (external link)
1x (external link)
instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Thomas ­ Campbell
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
2,105 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Kingwood, TX
     
Jan 09, 2014 19:30 |  #19

grayline wrote in post #16592320 (external link)
I think its completly ludicrous that if there was no monitary gain from it....
Its Dumb.. I have one of my pictures on a guys website he stole off my website
Can I sue him?

They are a company that got paid to create content for a client. Since that client paid them to create it, they did gain money off that image.

That few people saw it is immaterial.


Houston Wedding Photographer (external link)
Houston Sports Photographer (external link)
Current Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Thomas ­ Campbell
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
2,105 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Kingwood, TX
     
Jan 09, 2014 19:31 |  #20

Kronie wrote in post #16592124 (external link)
What's better then having to pay 8K for copyright infringement? Settling for 3 and netting 2! I personally never questioned payouts, just multiple big ones or even "a" big one for Joe photographer. I wonder what kind of car they buy with the 2K?

Don't blame me because their lawyer sucks. :)


Houston Wedding Photographer (external link)
Houston Sports Photographer (external link)
Current Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
archer1960
Goldmember
Avatar
4,930 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 81
Joined Jul 2010
     
Jan 09, 2014 19:42 |  #21

juicedownload wrote in post #16591981 (external link)
I don't understand how a small company with a few employees that writes internet articles and blog content full-time doesn't understand the basics of online copyright infringement. Or are they just playing dumb?

Just playing dumb, IMO. If someone had copied content from their blogs, just wait and see how fast they would have been all over it...


Gripped 7D, gripped, full-spectrum modfied T1i (500D), SX50HS, A2E film body, Tamzooka (150-600), Tamron 90mm/2.8 VC (ver 2), Tamron 18-270 VC, Canon FD 100 f/4.0 macro, Canon 24-105 f/4L,Canon EF 200 f/2.8LII, Canon 85 f/1.8, Tamron Adaptall 2 90mmf/2.5 Macro, Tokina 11-16, Canon EX-430 flash, Vivitar DF-383 flash, Astro-Tech AT6RC and Celestron NexStar 102 GT telescopes, various other semi-crappy manual lenses and stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
thedcmule2
Goldmember
1,125 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Nov 2011
     
Jan 09, 2014 19:44 |  #22

I really dislike that they insulted the photo to start of the article. Then played all innocent like "oh we didnt know"...

:confused:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
vengence
Goldmember
2,103 posts
Likes: 107
Joined Mar 2013
     
Jan 09, 2014 19:49 |  #23

Scatterbrained wrote in post #16592340 (external link)
:confused: What exactly do you mean? If I steal your lawnmower am I absolved of guilt because I didn't make any money with it? The company was paid to provide content. It's how they earn their money. They chose to steal someone else' content to then provide to a client. Whether they made any money is irrelevant.

It's not theft. It's not stealing. You didn't go into your garage and find your lawnmower missing. You weren't deprived of the opportunity of mowing your lawn with it. You were deprived the opportunity to charge your neighbor for it. Something he would have turned down if you had offered.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for IP rights, but stop calling it stealing. It's not.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
archer1960
Goldmember
Avatar
4,930 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 81
Joined Jul 2010
     
Jan 09, 2014 19:55 |  #24

vengence wrote in post #16592511 (external link)
It's not theft. It's not stealing. You didn't go into your garage and find your lawnmower missing. You weren't deprived of the opportunity of mowing your lawn with it. You were deprived the opportunity to charge your neighbor for it. Something he would have turned down if you had offered.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for IP rights, but stop calling it stealing. It's not.

Legally, it is theft. Similar to what happens if you tap into the cable company's system or get a hold of a satellite TV decoder and get TV service without paying for it, it's "theft of service" in most jurisdictions, even though you haven't deprived anybody else of their service.


Gripped 7D, gripped, full-spectrum modfied T1i (500D), SX50HS, A2E film body, Tamzooka (150-600), Tamron 90mm/2.8 VC (ver 2), Tamron 18-270 VC, Canon FD 100 f/4.0 macro, Canon 24-105 f/4L,Canon EF 200 f/2.8LII, Canon 85 f/1.8, Tamron Adaptall 2 90mmf/2.5 Macro, Tokina 11-16, Canon EX-430 flash, Vivitar DF-383 flash, Astro-Tech AT6RC and Celestron NexStar 102 GT telescopes, various other semi-crappy manual lenses and stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
thedcmule2
Goldmember
1,125 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Nov 2011
     
Jan 09, 2014 20:00 |  #25

Intangible/digital theft can be exercising a right exclusive only to the copyright holder (such as publishing movies OR pictures, or pulling TV service) without permission (i.e. paid license). Hence why archer1960's example works...you published my intellectual property on your website without a license, you stole from my rights without permission.

Tangible theft is different, obviously, the person literally loses their valuables. You have to make the word theft flexible when talking about intellectual property in my opinion...so I dont think a lawnmower and a digital photograph can be compared. But hey, what do I know...im glad ill always be able to make my own images :D




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
vengence
Goldmember
2,103 posts
Likes: 107
Joined Mar 2013
     
Jan 09, 2014 20:05 |  #26

archer1960 wrote in post #16592526 (external link)
Legally, it is theft. Similar to what happens if you tap into the cable company's system or get a hold of a satellite TV decoder and get TV service without paying for it, it's "theft of service" in most jurisdictions, even though you haven't deprived anybody else of their service.

Uhh, no it's not. Your ignorance of copyright doesn't change reality.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scatterbrained
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,422 posts
Gallery: 217 photos
Best ofs: 11
Likes: 4120
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Chula Vista, CA
     
Jan 09, 2014 20:27 |  #27

vengence wrote in post #16592511 (external link)
It's not theft. It's not stealing. You didn't go into your garage and find your lawnmower missing. You weren't deprived of the opportunity of mowing your lawn with it. You were deprived the opportunity to charge your neighbor for it. Something he would have turned down if you had offered.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for IP rights, but stop calling it stealing. It's not.

It's IP theft. Just ask the RIAA, MPAA, FBI, etc.


VanillaImaging.com (external link)"Vacuous images for the Vapid consumer"
500px (external link)
flickr (external link)
1x (external link)
instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Picture ­ North ­ Carolina
Gaaaaa! DOH!! Oops!
9,234 posts
Likes: 202
Joined Apr 2006
Location: North Carolina
     
Jan 10, 2014 05:38 |  #28

gonzogolf wrote in post #16591263 (external link)
Its funny how she puts all the blame on lawyers, and the need for changing these silly copyright laws, and no real understanding that they committed theft.

^^ this.

But understandable. Thus is the code of conduct of thieves, scumbags and assorted dirtballs. They don't get it. They never do. Until, of course, somebody steals their car they they shout with the utmost comprehension and understanding: "that's not right!" (Oh, and you can lump into this category those who, in this thread, made sarcastic and defamatory comments about attorneys - of which I am not one.)

And thanks for posting the article. The insight into the mind of a thief was enjoyable. From disparaging the image to disparaging the legal trade, the insight was revealing.


Website (external link) |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rgs
Goldmember
Avatar
2,357 posts
Gallery: 155 photos
Likes: 1036
Joined Jun 2007
Location: Oklahoma City
     
Jan 10, 2014 06:33 |  #29

The blog starts with "What’s lamer than a crappy photo of Nebraska?" This is an example of "obnoxiously high" editorial standards? Really? Lamer instead of more lame or perhaps slightly more formal language? For me, everything was in question after that first sentence.


Canon 7d MkII, Canon 50D, Pentax 67, Canon 30D, Baker Custom 4x5, Canon EF 24-104mm f4, Canon EF 100mm f2.8 Macro, Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC

The Singular Image (external link)Richard Smith Photography (external link)
Richard Smith Real Estate Photography (external link)500PX (external link)
Fine Art America (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
monkey44
Senior Member
Avatar
726 posts
Likes: 15
Joined Jul 2003
     
Jan 10, 2014 08:30 |  #30

As far as I'm concerned, I own everyone of my words and images. Any time another party uses it without permission, it violates copyright law. I'll be there first one to go after it and protect my work. It happens much too often, and if we don't protect ourselves, who will.

I believe the fine and penalty should be huge - With the advent of the internet and digital art, and the idea in a person's brain they can use my work is absolutely inaccurate ... Large fines and penalties - it's the only way to stop it.

That 'crybaby' attitude of the person that posted the image - the penalty is too high, we'd have been out of business - makes me laugh. They should be put out of business if they steal artwork from anyone.




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

5,879 views & 0 likes for this thread
Don't steal photos from Google Searches: An expensive mistake
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos The Business of Photography 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is kazali
886 guests, 294 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.