To my dismay, one of my works has been stolen.

[gorsescent]

To prosecute the perpetrators

My name is Takehiko Sato. I'm a Japanese photographer. One of my photographic works has been stolen and sold in Europe without my permission. I'd like to have the police arrest them and have them prosecuted.

If you know the perpetrators who sold the photo at the following website, please email me.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/37042223@N08/6693008267/in/album-72157651987440551/

[Jim Noel]

Did you put it on the web, or was it a print. If on the web although probably illegal, it is fair game. The same thing happened to me in the early days of the web, thus you never see images of mine except in person.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Was it stolen and put on the 'net? Where?

[Corran]

It's not "fair game" if it's on the web. That's not how copyright works, but is a common misconception. There's also the issue of local copyright laws and international copyright laws.

As for the image in question - stolen and sold how? You would have quite a slog, in terms of lawyers, paperwork, etc. to get any remuneration, so it's important to establish whether the loss of income equates to $100 or $100,000. If you have discovered that someone printed one of your images at the local drugstore I think it's best you not worry about it.

[Jac@stafford.net]

It gets complicated when considering European copyrights. For example, some images are exempt from copyright, such as architecture or sculpture which are located permanently in public places. Just to make life a little more complicated for the thief, look into steganography which is easy to do. FWIW, Japan follows the Bern Convention so European copyright is fairly applicable.

Or hire my man, Guido ... :)

[stawastawa]

your settings on flickr allow the image to be downloaded at a relatively large file size, so it would be fairly easy for someone to use it.
consider changing the file size you upload to the web to discourage unauthorized use.

[Corran]

some images are exempt from copyright, such as architecture or sculpture which are located permanently in public places.

Interesting! I didn't know that. Looking at the image in question, it seems that it might fall under such a category?

[mdarnton]

I think, but am not sure, that this may be backwards: there are certain type of public art works that themselves have copyright so that your picture may violate that copyright, but that isn't an exemption against your copyright: it's extra protection for them from you using any photos of their art commercially. They own not only the object, but also the right to photos of it.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter

[callmebrick]

It's not "fair game" if it's on the web. That's not how copyright works, but is a common misconception.
.

I think Jim meant fair game as in freely and legally available, but freely available for a crime of opportunity.

[jnantz]

your settings on flickr allow the image to be downloaded at a relatively large file size, so it would be fairly easy for someone to use it.
consider changing the file size you upload to the web to discourage unauthorized use.

couldn't agree more with this !

regarding copyright ...
at least in the states, if you don't have the copyright registration in-hand
no lawyer will help and in some instances a judge won't even allow a case to proceed.
while people put © next to their name because they believe an original work
is copyright'ed at the moment the shutter clicks or they take the image out of the
fixer, unless it is registered in washington dc it really is a useless feat to try to get $$$ ...
i have no clue how copyrighted materials work outside the states ...

[faberryman]

your settings on flickr allow the image to be downloaded at a relatively large file size, so it would be fairly easy for someone to use it.
consider changing the file size you upload to the web to discourage unauthorized use.
Not only is the image size large, but the resolution is 350dpi, which means someone can make a nice large print. Consider uploading images at a resolution of 72dpi and a maximum size of 720p on the long side. It won't affect how they look on the screen, but it will make them less attractive to download.

[AtlantaTerry]

Not only is the image size large, but the resolution is 350dpi, which means someone can make a nice large print. Consider uploading images at a resolution of 72dpi and a maximum size of 720p on the long side. It won't affect how they look on the screen, but it will make them less attractive to download.

Actually, 72DPI is not needed because that is a printer specification, not a viewing one. You could use a 1DPI and the image would look the same. As a matter of fact, that is what I do if I send an image to a client for review - they can see it but they can't print it. (Yes, I know the DPI can be changed back to 72 or 300 or anything else but that is usually beyond most folks.)

[Corran]

because they believe an original work
is copyright'ed at the moment the shutter clicks or they take the image out of the
fixer, unless it is registered in washington dc it really is a useless feat to try to get $$$ ...
i have no clue how copyrighted materials work outside the states ...

No, a work is "under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form" in the USA.

https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html

Making a claim and following through with that claim legally is greatly helped by registration - but you can do that at anytime to make it "official," including in preparation for a lawsuit.

And as already stated by AT, DPI is a meaningless number in the context of a digital file and has no relation to the pixel dimensions of the file, only to the number of pixels per inch used by the printer. A file set to 300 DPI that is only 300x300 pixels will be tiny on screen, and would only print as a little 1 x 1 inch postage stamp. Setting it to 30 DPI would change nothing on screen, and while it would print 10 x 10 inches, it would be very pixelated.

[ic-racer]

It's not "fair game" if it's on the web.

Yes, it is not 'fair game' it is how the internet works. If it can't be downloaded to the viewer's computer, it can't be seen.

[Corran]

Yep - even disallowing downloads on Flickr means little. It's trivial to look at the source code and find the *.jpg link, or just screenshot an image.

[Jac@stafford.net]

If it can't be downloaded to the viewer's computer, it can't be seen.

I believe I am misreading your post. Any image presented to the browser can be downloaded or captured. No?
Oh, Corran already answered. Thanks, Corran.

[jnantz]

No, a work is "under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form" in the USA.

https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html

Making a claim and following through with that claim legally is greatly helped by registration - but you can do that at anytime to make it "official," including in preparation for a lawsuit.


coran i don't mean to sound argumentative, but ... what you said is kind of true in theory but not practice ...

as someone who has had trouble with a former client who stole my work and published it without my consent ...
i have spoken to the copyright office and lawyers ( both free ones, and ones that cost $$ ) and they told me without registration it is a lost cause.
while something is intrinsically copyrighted when the shutter is depressed and it is "created", that is different than the protections
that registration offers. ( and from what i remember registration should be done before publication, and posting images on the web is publication )
if images are taken and published and $$ made from them, being sold or leased to an ad agency for publication/advertisement/commerce
by a person who unlawfully took and used / made $ from the work, and the images were not registered -- it doesn't matter if you have the original negatives
or files, judges sometimes will not hear the case and because it is murky at best ( he said she said ), and a lawyer doesn't want to waste their efforts
when it isn't cut and dry who owns the rights to an image. registration is legal proof of ownership.
the problem now is that images are on the internet, and someone who finds something they can make $$ off of can suggest the work is abandoned/orphaned
and claim them much like a squatter can suggest they own a parcel of land they have illegally been living on. i can't remember who told me
but they said possession is 9/10 of the law... richard prince is a someone who made lots of $$ by downloading and printing other people's instagram photos.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/27/living/richard-prince-instagram-feat/index.html
im not sure if it is still true, but supposedly FB claims ownership of images uploaded to their site, so they can publish everything and make $$ off of it too
it used to be in terms and condtions .. not sure if they changed it, last i was active there was IDK 10 years ago and there was a petition to stop the practice
that had like 100K names on it ...

[Corran]

Well, certainly there is the law and then there is the enforcement of the law.

With the digital age and internet upon us, there are billions of images flying around on the web. Posting on Flickr, Facebook, forums, etc. means you've "published" the work, and to register the thousands of images "published" as such would be not only crazy but ridiculously expensive. I am by no means a lawyer and my understanding of copyright law is certainly not up to that level - but I think calling your situation a "lost cause" is dubious! Perhaps they simply did not see an opportunity to make money on your case. If your images were used on a national billboard campaign for Coca-Cola their tune might change...

Tangentially related - about 10 years ago I was caught in an infamous speed trap (ranked #2 worst in the nation). I went to court intending to see what I could do to fight the charge and huge fine. The judge at the hearing stated in no uncertain terms that if anyone attempted to plead "not guilty" or challenge the charges that he would "throw the book" at them and make their experience hell. This was a clear violation of #5 and/or #6 on the Bill of Rights from what I remember. As a young college student with hardly any money to my name (the fine pretty much cleaned me out) I was told by the public defender to not invite the wrath of the judge. So yes, I understand what you are saying...but that doesn't change the law as it should be (and we can hope is) applied :).

As for the Instagram photos - I believe the artist claims fair use through transformation. Wasn't that being challenged in court? I haven't kept up with it.

[jnantz]

WPosting on Flickr, Facebook, forums, etc. means you've "published" the work, and to register the thousands of images "published" as such would be not only crazy but ridiculously expensive.


gang registration used to be like $65, and you could register upto 750 images.. its not very expensive...
https://www.copyright.gov/about/fees.html

regarding the lost cause statement, i don't think it is dubious at all, most images that
are used/published without consent are not coca cola ads but things someone thinks
no one will notice they are publishing and they think they can get away with it.
lawyers with experience in IP and the arts know it is nearly impossible to defend somenoe
who doesn't have the registration and they and judges have better things to do ...
on the other hand
i've read stories about cocacola or mcD's ad agencies finding someone's work on flickr
and offering the photographer 100$ or something to use the image on a billboard
and the photographer was elated and the ad agent not only did the right thing but
saved their client thousands of dollars ...

[Jac@stafford.net]

jnanian stated the elemental case: we must have completed a copyright before a US court will consider our case. That's the end of it.

[Corran]

I wonder though about registering after the theft, and concurrently suing.

Image theft for me has been handled with a DMCA Takedown Notice. This is of course only for online/digital theft, not print/sale. I have not had that issue (that I know of).

[jnantz]

I wonder though about registering after the theft, and concurrently suing.

Image theft for me has been handled with a DMCA Takedown Notice. This is of course only for online/digital theft, not print/sale. I have not had that issue (that I know of).


not sure about registering after the theft / after it has been published ( legally or illegally ) ... there is a space
on the olde form for previously published so i think you can ( or used to be able to ) ...
i do know for a few extra dollars you can "rush register" images, so instead of the typical 6 or 7 weeks it takes a few.

i've attached the old "Form VA" which is pretty self explanatory / has instructions ... i'm guessing the new one is very similar

[DrTang]

how much did they get?

[paulbarden]

Did you put it on the web, or was it a print. If on the web although probably illegal, it is fair game.

I find it troubling that anyone in this group would offer what is essentially permission to steal and misuse intellectual property in this manner. To suggest: "hey, this is how the Internet works, so get over it" is only contributing to a culture of theft.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I wonder though about registering after the theft, and concurrently suing. [...]

We must consider that every copyright challenge accepted is considered by a court and treated as a unique case. This does not mean that precedent is not important, but it does mean it assures no guarantee. I am not a lawyer. I did study law as a kid but all I gained was a profound respect for intellectual property law. Allow me to introduce the most inspiring and terrifying scholar of law, University of Chicago Law School long ago. Photo here (http://www.digoliardi.net/Richard-A-Epstein.jpg) (by me).

[Corran]

We must consider that every copyright challenge accepted is considered by a court and treated as a unique case.

Absolutely! Anyway, all this pertains to USA law, which I guess doesn't help the OP. I wonder if we'll hear from him again.

[Steven Tribe]

It may be of little solace to the OP, but the images he links to are very good examples of how monochrome images are far more dramatic than panchromatic similar. An understandable theft.