john, i found this info on the photo.net site; it may be of some use...
Violation of photo copyright on the internet--can Photo.net help in a major way?
The following is from page 7 of the 26 Feb. 2000 issue of the British photo magazine Amateur Photographer:
"Photographers win copyright battle Pressure from photographers and journalists has forced the Virgin Net website to withdraw rules that effectively took away all photographers' right to their images once placed on the site. the move follows protest by the Editorial Photographers UK & Ireland (EPUK), the National Union of Journalists and the Writers Guild who complained at the terms and conditions which gave Virgin Net full ownership of copyright of materials placed on its service. . . . . . . . . . . . . The original paragraph on the Virgin Net site had read: 'All information and material submitted to and accepted by Virgin Net via the Service or that you publish on any public area via the Service shall be deemed and remain the property of Virgin Net . . . .' Last year the Yahoo Internet service provider withdrew a similar demand after a worldwide campaign."
Occasionally, questions are raised in this forum asking for advice on the violation of copyright of photographs posted on the Internet, and most answers suggest consulting a lawyer--but how many of us have the time and means to do that, especially for those people who live in place where the idea of copyright doesn't even exist in the local legal system? I think the issue can be most effectively dealt with by some kind of pressure group that can represent copyright-violation victims on the Web. Since Photo.net has established itself as an independent, respected and potentially powerful photographic organization on the Web, and is planning an expansion of its services, I wonder if it would consider a role as such a pressure group? What do you think?
-- Hoyin Lee , March 05, 2000; 01:16 P.M. Eastern Answers I won't presume to speak for the management,just me.First top of the head reaction, Hoyin. Yes, apparently it's a problem,even worse than other copyright issues because it is enmeshed in new technology. Yes, the mechanisms for dealing with the internet in all its legal ramifications (E.g profiteer registering of web names) are just getting rolling and are going to take action sooner rather than later. But by whom and how? Should photo net organize to "do something" you ask or propose. If I appreciate the published raison d'etre, I think the value of Photo.net has been to disseminate information and allow sharing and even networking. The Neighbor to Neighbor section has effectively put a gentle brake on some scurrilous merchants without even taking a Ralph-Nader-like stance. I recommend that you and some others here take the lead in forming a separate advocacy group apart from the forum. Maybe the forum will let you use the Lusenet for same. Best wishes on curbing abuses.
-- Gerry Siegel , March 05, 2000; 02:24 P.M. Eastern
Cool, the Photo.net Flame Brigade All members get to wear a funny hat and receive a lapel pin for formal occasions. Instead of working of out angst in the Canon vs. Nikon wars, we can send flame mail to alledged internet copyright infringments. Oh wait, did I say "alledged"? Gee, when you think about it, the checks and balances required to make sure that the system is used responsably and not abused could get complicated quick. We certainly wouldn't want photo.net to get the reputation that we are a bunch of rabble-rousing hooligans.... well, no moreso than has already been earned.
-- grant groberg , March 05, 2000; 03:27 P.M. Eastern
Hoyin, About the only thing that can realistically be done is a consistent attempt at educating both photography producers and consumers. There will always bew people who can't understand, alway's be people who don't understand, and there will always be people who refuse to understand, ignore and/or abuse the system even when it is not in their best interest to do so. That's human nature for you.
-- Ellis Vener , March 05, 2000; 04:54 P.M. Eastern
Hoyin: I am a lawyer with much copyright experience (I also taught it at one time). For working photogs, I offer the following: for a modest fee ($125), I will send a series of letters (up to three) to alleged infringers and their ISPs. Often, I find that a threatening letter is enough to compel the infringer to remove the work in question (or cause the ISP to terminate the infringer's account). In some cases, a letter will lead to a payment to the photog. If you or anyone else is interested, E-mail me with facts and a link to the infringing site. I will send you my address for payment. I am a member of several state Bars, as well as various federal Bars and the Bar of the US Supreme Court.
-- John Costo , March 05, 2000; 07:55 P.M. Eastern
... but Hoyin's point was about an ISP whose conditions apparently included assuming copyright ownership. Very bad news, of course, but anyone who accepts such terms is an idiot.
-- Alan Gibson , March 05, 2000; 08:59 P.M. Eastern
[...] most answers suggest consulting a lawyer--but how many of us have the time and means to do that [...] If you can do it yourself, and you have the time, you might not need a lawyer. Though you probably won't go wrong having a cooler head on your side.
If you can't do it yourself, you must secure a lawyer.
If you can't secure a lawyer, then you are screwed.
This is known as the "Rule of Law", as it has evolved (or maybe "devolved"?) over the centuries. It is unlikely any "pressure group" will be able to change it in a meaningful way. [ie, Mr. Costo's offer seems reasonable to me!]
A far more potent force is the technology itself ... as the RIAA and the MPAA has discovered. Business models based on distribution of physical artifacts by various cartels, middle-men and the like will ultimately collapse, even if the music and movie industries manage to prevail on all their outstanding claims. So I think a more interesting question is not how to apply "pressure" to keep the status quo, but how to exist in an environment where making copies of things is at the very core of what it is to be "digital".
-- Matthew Francey , March 05, 2000; 09:59 P.M. Eastern
Hoyin, this is an interesting subject to me, and I'll offer the following comments.
The basic thing that photographers can to to protect their valuable images is to NOT post them on the Internet, period (emphatically). If you do so for self promotion of some sort, then post a lower resolution version that won't have value beyond your use in promotion. The problem is that anyone can 'right click' on the image and use it as they desire.
Consider trademark protection. I can search the web for, say, Ford (tm) and find it being missused all over the place. Can the law protect Ford, sure, but what an overwhelming job to do so.
John Costo's approach is a good one, use a demand letter from an attorney, to scare the misbehaving party into stopping the bad acts. Usually works, but not always.
As far as Virgin Net acquiring rights in images as they attempt, that is an interesting questions as well. They can only acquire the rights if a court finds that a valid contracct to transfer the rights was created by their "rules." How likley is that, not very in my opinion. Shrink-wrap licenses fall in that genre and they have had a tough go of it over the years. Lately, they are tending to be more and more enforceable. But acquiring ownership in creative works by by pressing an "I Agree" button, I wouldn't want to trust my future to such a proposition.
Fianlly, in my personal opinion, using photo.net as a forum for policing Internet copyright matters, I don't think it is such a good idea. Let's stick to supporting each other as photographers for now.
Lawyers never lose, right Mr. Costo? Seriously, though, Hoyin, anyone dealing with Virgin as an ISP would have to be blind or subnormal to miss the implications of the rat-bastard clause you cited.Getting images "off" the internet is like getting pee out of a public pool.Who can expect sympathy--or redress--when the terms are explicitly stated, as they purportedly are by Virgin and other ISPs? There seems a limit to efforts necessary to protect people from themselves, especially when the crucial information sits so close to the surface.
-- Gary Watson , March 06, 2000; 07:13 P.M. Eastern
The uproar on Yahoo's method started when Yahoo aquired some site which ALREADY had images there. Those images were NOT posted with rights released, but Yahoo then absconded with the right.
Hoyin also addressed the issue of places where copyrights are not enforced rigidly.
Best bet IMHO is as the above poster suggested, do not put valuable images on the net, or put them at such a low resolution as to make them unusable.
-- Floyd Vaughan , March 08, 2000; 02:52 A.M. Eastern
even worse, what Yahoo did was force people to accept the license before they could delete the content. In other words, we had our IP held hostage. They lost about a third of the geocities members because of this.
-- Jeroen Wenting , June 14, 2001; 04:50 A.M. Eastern
? 2000, 2001, 2002 photo.net, All Rights Reserved. Design by Ulla Zang. About Us | Photo.net FAQ | Advertising | In the News | Site Map | Related Sites | Contact Us | Terms of Use | Privacy
I was in a situation similar to yours some months ago and posted much the same question, and received similar advice.
As to my remedy, I simply sent the offender an invoice at my regular rate, which much to my surprise was paid promptly. I have since gotten considerable follow on work from this client.
So, until you're shown otherwise, assume your 'client' has simply made a mistake and give them a chance to pay. If you don't receive payment within a reasonable period, follow up with a letter or phone call stating your case, and if you still see no payment, proceed with a lawyer or small claims court.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks