|
Post by Randy on Aug 16, 2014 13:46:18 GMT -5
The rule here has been.....If you don't want your pictures stolen, don't post them.
If you use a photo sharing service like FLicker, they make it hard to take other's photos.
|
|
SidW
Lifetime Member
Posts: 1,107
|
Post by SidW on Aug 16, 2014 20:12:22 GMT -5
... if you photograph the screen you completely lose all previous digital information. What is visible to the eye is in analogue form and that is what the camera is taking. Any digital signature is lost ... Dave, Digimarc claim their watermark survives scanning, lossy compression, photographing, photocopying, publication in books. They issue you the unique ID, so you can claim first use. Truls, dates, and other image info stored in the file, can be edited.
|
|
|
Post by genazzano on Aug 17, 2014 3:57:33 GMT -5
Thus, there are several methods of firmly establishing authorship of an image, so to speak. However, if you find your image being used on some site, your recourses are to report it to Google and the site can be delisted from Google searches. The remaining recourse involves legal action against the owner of the site. If you publisize the name of the site that is, in your opinion, illegally using your image, you open yourself to retaliation which is unproductive.
It's apparently not like finding someone who has your car parked on their driveway and you can take it back. It appears that once you find a site that is improperly using your image, your recourses are limited to ones that are risky and probably expensive.
Pride of authorship, ownership of an image, is simply not enough. There should be a means of recovering control over the use of images as there is if the image had been printed or otherwise improperly published of other media.
If we had the resources of entitlies such as Getty, the consequence of improper use of images would be clear. But, it would seem that individual photographers on the Internet have no effective protection of their property rights.
Is this conclusion not true?
David
|
|
|
Post by philbirch on Aug 17, 2014 5:19:07 GMT -5
If we had the resources of entitlies such as Getty, the consequence of improper use of images would be clear. But, it would seem that individual photographers on the Internet have no effective protection of their property rights. Is this conclusion not true? David It probably is. I have a picture that has been in use by a rock guitarist for over 13 years. There is no doubt who the author is, I put it on my own site from where it was stolen, and have the original transparency. You cant argue with that. Now although I don't mind him using it as I consider it a tribute to me, I asked him for a credit for it, there was no answer so I put it around that he has stolen my image for his own use. He took notice of that and denied it saying his own photographer took it. He had photoshopped the image in a unique way and added a graphic. I authorised this image (and others) to be used in a book about the band. I understand he complained to the author and demanded payment for use of the image. A snapshot of me holding the original slide shut him up. His site is no longer working so he no longer uses the image but the original is still floating around both in its original and my colour corrected version - probably scanned from the book. I have tried to trace the posters but it's almost impossible, sites that host it tell me that its linked from another site and not on their server. Many people are using my image non-commercially on forums and fan pages. Along with hundreds of other images taken by other photographers. Ultimately I and a couple of the other photographers who found themselves in the same boat have now come to the conclusion that it is easier to leave it where it is and only worry if it is used in print commercially. If its in print you have a direct line to the author and publisher. No names mentioned so this photo and post cannot be picked up by Google. Here is my image, shamelessly downloaded from a forum and used here not as an illustration but because its My Photo And I Took It!! This has been downloaded from my site. The file name is even the same.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2014 10:49:44 GMT -5
This is one reason I never post a photo with mre than 72 ppi resolution. It won't stap anyone from stealing it but makes it difficult to use it commercially.
|
|
|
Post by genazzano on Aug 17, 2014 14:12:20 GMT -5
Philbirch, I love that story. It's not very encouraging but it has sort of a pissy attitude about it. Complimenti!
Ciao,
David tomei
|
|
|
Post by philbirch on Aug 17, 2014 16:12:16 GMT -5
Pissy? probably I havent looked at it that way. Yeah I suppose. I looked tonight and found at least 5 other sites using it and his own version of it here. This guy is as pissy as they get. I almost got in a fight with him once. A drunken Scot, who had too much fame too soon in my opinion. I'd prefer not to mention his name on this forum and would rather you didn't as it will come up in searches. Search the file name in images and he will come up. Search his real name in images and my photo is first on the list. Pissy yeah and why not.
|
|
|
Post by genazzano on Aug 17, 2014 16:38:16 GMT -5
Yes, the opposite of wimp (you can still say that can't you?).
Is there an international body responsible for these problems?
|
|
|
Post by philbirch on Aug 17, 2014 18:00:12 GMT -5
Yes, the opposite of wimp (you can still say that can't you?). Is there an international body responsible for these problems? Wasn't sure what it meant, I assumed it meant annoyed or angry. I'm happy with pissy. Thank you!
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Aug 18, 2014 4:22:29 GMT -5
Pissy? probably I havent looked at it that way. Yeah I suppose. I looked tonight and found at least 5 other sites using it and his own version of it here. This guy is as pissy as they get. I almost got in a fight with him once. A drunken Scot, who had too much fame too soon in my opinion. I'd prefer not to mention his name on this forum and would rather you didn't as it will come up in searches. Search the file name in images and he will come up. Search his real name in images and my photo is first on the list. Pissy yeah and why not. That is obviously Jane Fonda in need of a perm. J for Jane. Mickey
|
|