Has my photo been illegally used?

Such a crazy thread. ahhaha

True. There's a time limit after publication in which you can register & still get damages.

THEY are responsible for paying your lawyer AND damages. I don't think your source understands © issues.

We try to tell you guys, so pardon me, but I just have to...

PhotosGuy wrote in post #5345569
We try to tell you guys, so pardon me, but I just have to...

HTTP response: 403 | MIME changed to 'text/html'

This really is a classic example of the messages that seem to told over and over, yet seem to be largely ignored.

- Microstock makes money for the agency, saves money for the buyers, and does little to nothing for the photographers. After all the work shooting, cataloging, tweaking the images, keywording, uploading, they get a return on investments measured in cents. If it sells at all.

- Not registering your images is giving infringers a license to steal from you. If you don't register, you can only claim actual damages, you need to pay the lawyer up front with no guarantee of winning. Looking at it from a shoplifters perspective. If I steal a $100 radio, I have to pay the $100 to the store if they happen to catch me and send me an invoice, or pay a lawyer thousands of dollars to take it to court, which most never will. Hmmm, sweet deal!

- Lastly, Canon obviously takes better pictures than Nikon, and Bill and Rosanne need to outsource their photography so they have images good enough to use on their marketing to sell their workshop on photography!

Ok, the last one is in jest. But pretty funny and embarrassing to all of them just the same. This is on par with the everywhere girl ! I would register that image right away as it could have a nice ride ahead with the publicity it may get

basroil wrote in post #5329335
Just remember though, if you had posted those photos on Flickr, flickr's terms allow them to hold nearly full copyright privileges for the duration that they are there, if they are publicly viewable. Might get complicated if Yahoo! is the source of the problems.

sfaust,

What is your take on this regarding Flickr? You have a gallery there, are you worried?

Tim

And this is why microstock is a load of crap. Sorry to hear you got screwed.

kona77 wrote in post #5403584

basroil wrote in post #5329335
Just remember though, if you had posted those photos on Flickr, flickr's terms allow them to hold nearly full copyright privileges for the duration that they are there, if they are publicly viewable. Might get complicated if Yahoo! is the source of the problems.

sfaust,

What is your take on this regarding Flickr? You have a gallery there, are you worried?

Tim

Flickr does have full privileges for any images, content, etc, that you post, but only for the purpose of providing their service. Ie, they have the rights to modify your images, as it should be. Otherwise, how would they take your uploaded image, create thumbnails, small, medium, and large size images for display without modifying them?

They pretty much have carte blanche to your images, but only in conjunction with providing the Flickr service. They do not have the right to give your images to someone else for use, re-license them, or grant third party rights, etc, nor do they have the rights to use the images for anything not related to delivering the Flickr service.

Besides, if Flickr sold or licensed an image a third party, once that info got back to Flickr users, Flickr would be a dead zone IMO. I can't see them shooting themselves in the foot, when they have a good thing going.

So no, I'm not worried about it at all.

Aepoc, this is your uncle. I'm in a bind could you send me a couple of grand? Glad to finally find ya.