Copy right Infringement!

[J Peterson]

Hi all, you may want to look at this thread, follow the links and see if your work is being stolen too.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rebba/497746041/

[Doug Dolde]

If you are concerned with hotlinking you can block that with the .htaccess file. See:

http://www.javascriptkit.com/howto/htaccess10.shtml

[Michael Alpert]

J.,
If you read the comments to the announcement, you will find the following response. Life is always more complex than it seems to be.

-------

Many thanks for your email.

Can I start by saying there are 2 sides to every story and I will try to tell you our side.

In August 2006, we were contacted by "Wild Aspects and Panoramics LTD" a company based here in London, they offered to show us some imagery, that they stated would be high resolution and we would have sole reselling rights.

Anyway 2 weeks passed, emails were sent back and forth,basic research was done by us to enable us to resell them and then the paperwork was signed and a considerable amount of money was paid(£3000.00)by us , for us to start selling these images in the form of canvas prints.

6 months later we had a letter from a law firm in Iceland, stating we were using someone's images, we googled the claimants name, lo and behold we found we had been duped!.

As requested we immediately removed the images from the internet and destroyed any copies of the images we had.
We emailed the law firm to state we had dealt with these requests and to apologise to their client.

We took legal advice, they told us say nothing more than we had, not reccomending we contact the claimant and tell her what had happened, by the way we were very keen to do that, but we were told to avoid all contact.

In the meantime we started our own investigation into the above company's contacts and sources but have since found nothing more because the telephone doesn't get answered, mobiles are permanantly off and emails are getting bounced back, it seems we were conned too.

As digital artists and designers, we know the importance of integrity, hence the immediate halt and removal of images from the internet, if we had no morals, surely we would still be selling them to recoup our costs?.

As Rebekka has now decided to make this public, we can set about explaining to her why this has happened and of course, to apologise.

Many thanks O-D

[walter23]

If the company was honestly duped as they claim, they might demonstrate this by paying her the full amount earned from her prints. It's probably a sticky legal situation now, though.

[roteague]

If you are concerned with hotlinking you can block that with the .htaccess file.

Keeping in mind, that this techinque doesn't work on all web servers.

[J Peterson]

J.,
If you read the comments to the announcement, you will find the following response. Life is always more complex than it seems to be.

-------

Many thanks for your email.

Can I start by saying there are 2 sides to every story and I will try to tell you our side.

In August 2006, we were contacted by "Wild Aspects and Panoramics LTD" a company based here in London, they offered to show us some imagery, that they stated would be high resolution and we would have sole reselling rights.

Anyway 2 weeks passed, emails were sent back and forth,basic research was done by us to enable us to resell them and then the paperwork was signed and a considerable amount of money was paid(£3000.00)by us , for us to start selling these images in the form of canvas prints.

6 months later we had a letter from a law firm in Iceland, stating we were using someone's images, we googled the claimants name, lo and behold we found we had been duped!.

As requested we immediately removed the images from the internet and destroyed any copies of the images we had.
We emailed the law firm to state we had dealt with these requests and to apologise to their client.

We took legal advice, they told us say nothing more than we had, not reccomending we contact the claimant and tell her what had happened, by the way we were very keen to do that, but we were told to avoid all contact.

In the meantime we started our own investigation into the above company's contacts and sources but have since found nothing more because the telephone doesn't get answered, mobiles are permanantly off and emails are getting bounced back, it seems we were conned too.

As digital artists and designers, we know the importance of integrity, hence the immediate halt and removal of images from the internet, if we had no morals, surely we would still be selling them to recoup our costs?.

As Rebekka has now decided to make this public, we can set about explaining to her why this has happened and of course, to apologise.

Many thanks O-D


Hmmmm...but do you buy that? Seems like the old "bought it off some guy on the street" answer to me.

Either way, poor girl.

[Michael Graves]

I would be interested in seeing how this pans out. It's been my experience that copyright laws are enforced selectively. Musicians have the most protection, artists a little less and writers the least of all. RIAA can walk into a college and demand the Internet access records of students on the hunch that music has been illegaly downloaded. If a large library is found, the assumption is that the music is illegal unless the user can prove ownership. Burden of proof rests on the accused. Which IMO is kind of the opposite of "innocent until proven guilty.

An artist can recover costs and fees as long as he or she can prove ownership of the original, but they would have to get a court order if they wanted to access the records of the people they were investigating. The chances of getting one are slim to nonexistant unless they already have overpowering proof of copyright infringement.

In both cases, copyright infringement is based on the use of intellectual property....not the possession of tangible goods. If the music is paid for once, but used twice; the second user is guilty of copyright infringement and subject to penalty. No tangible goods need to be present. Likewise with the image. Use of the image is based on payment rendered. Unless you sold all rights, a customer has limited rights to use the image. Perhaps they only own the right to display it. Or maybe they have the rights to reproduce it once. Ownership of the print is not ownership of the image.

From the author's standpoint, a college textbook can be resold over and over and over again. The use of the intellectual material is not in question but "possession of the print". When colleges resell a textbook, they make as much as three time the profit they make selling a new copy of the book. Yet not one cent is returned to the publishing company or the author. Colleges selling books over and over again and buying them back for pennies on the dollar is nothing more than a complex rental scheme where the user has the option of keeping the product by paying retail price up front.

Until all copyright protection is applied equally, I don't think that poor girl stands a chance. If she was a multimillion copy CD, she'd have an open-shut case.

[Donald Qualls]

IMusicians have the most protection, artists a little less and writers the least of all.

All a matter of who has the deepest pockets, as usual in modern society.

RIAA, ASCAP, etc. have huge funding from the record companies (they aren't interested in protecting musicians, only sales of "legitimate" recordings). Artists get protection from galleries and such. Writers are typically protected only by their agents, since publishers are well aware it's almost impossible to hurt *them* by infringing (even if you destroy a writer's ability to make a living, you haven't hurt the publisher; almost all plagiarism in the written word takes place before the publisher has even seen the work).

Unfortunately, photographers are closer to writers than to "artists" in this hierarchy -- work that's easily duplicated (especially with digital technology), low volume meaning a difficult task spotting the illegal copies, and little money involved outside of certain niches like fashion/advertising. With digital originals, it can even be tricky (if a case actually gets to court) proving who was the original author (registering copyright promptly can help, but even that might not completely sew things up, depending how the lawyers approach things).

[Joseph O'Neil]

Hmmmm...but do you buy that? Seems like the old "bought it off some guy on the street" answer to me.
Either way, poor girl.

actually, yes, I do buy it. I operate a business in a totally different field, and you would be amazed at the number of scams that come after businesses anymore, of all types, sizes, styles, etc.

Back to the pictures - there is no such thing as a central registry for all copyrighted images ever made - and even search engines like Google or Yahoo can fail you if you do not put in the right search phrase.

Let me put it another way - look at all the famous art galleries and museums around the world who bought famous artwork on false proviences and later turned out to be plundered Nazi loot. Some cases it may be obvious, but others were not. So if a major art museum can be duped, who's really 100% safe?

Which leads to the question - how do you prove rights or complete ownership of any image anymore? There was a famous case here in Canada a few years ago when Marlene Deitrich (spelling?) sued Corel Draw for using her photo on it's cover art for the software box. Turns out the "photo" was really an original bit of artwork done entirely from scratch in Corel Draw - a prize winner of a competition Corel Draw had. Now in that case Corel was able to prove it was a new, original image, not a photo, but still, it illustrates how difficult these issues are anymore.

joe

PS - unwanted hotlinking. Very, very easy way to take care of unwanted hotlinks stealing your images. Just remove your image for the time being, and redirect the hotlink to an image from Goatse or Tubgirl. It'll end real soon.

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Hi all,

"As Rebekka has now decided to make this public, we can set about explaining to her why this has happened and of course, to apologise."

She also posted that she only put-up a 72DPI image and had no idea how someone made it high-res.

"Turns out the "photo" was really an original bit of artwork done entirely from scratch in Corel Draw"

SO, the posters were made from 'original art work' and her's was only the inspiration. So much for a lawsuit, she'd be wasting her money and time. Something to keep in mind if you post an image on the net BEFORE you register a copyright for it.

Just a thought.

[tim atherton]

Hi all,

"As Rebekka has now decided to make this public, we can set about explaining to her why this has happened and of course, to apologise."

She also posted that she only put-up a 72DPI image and had no idea how someone made it high-res.

"Turns out the "photo" was really an original bit of artwork done entirely from scratch in Corel Draw"

SO, the posters were made from 'original art work' and her's was only the inspiration. So much for a lawsuit, she'd be wasting her money and time. Something to keep in mind if you post an image on the net BEFORE you register a copyright for it.

Just a thought.

Just a thought... hmm - I'm sure glad you're not my lawyer - you are conflating two entirely separate and different stories as far as I can tell

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Tim,

"Just a thought... hmm - I'm sure glad you're not my lawyer - you are conflating two entirely separate and different stories as far as I can tell"

Would anyone here be ready, willing and silly enough to bet THEIR case that the opposing lawyer would NOT play that exact tune, creating perfectly reasonable doubt and dropping the burden of proof right back in their lap, along with the expense???

NO, I'm not a lawyer, never claimed to be and NO, I don't do any part of photography for profit, it's a hobby, so none of this would effect me personally. It only makes common sense to copyright the image BEFORE you post it on the internet AND put the copyright logo on any pictures posted, ends the argument before it starts.

[tim atherton]

NO, I'm not a lawyer, never claimed to be and NO, I don't do any part of photography for profit, it's a hobby, so none of this would effect me personally. It only makes common sense to copyright the image BEFORE you post it on the internet AND put the copyright logo on any pictures posted, ends the argument before it starts.


the image is in copyright the moment it's created - copyright and registration are two different things (and as I recall registration isn't required in the UK where the infringement probably took place).

registering work is a somewhat costly but certainly time consuming exercise in the US, one undertaken by many professionals, but probably not that many amateurs, as this person, I believe, was, posting her images on a popular web sharing site. I doubt 2% of the images on Flickr are registered (which mainly applies to US photographers, bearing in mind the copyright law which is applies is that were the infringement takes place). All are the images on Flickr are copyrighted (or 99.9% - there may be someone posting from Yemen, I think it is who aren't part of the Berne Convention...).

adding the copyright symbol isn't generally a requirement and may or may not make any legal or practical difference.

[rippo]

I would be interested in seeing how this pans out. It's been my experience that copyright laws are enforced selectively. Musicians have the most protection, artists a little less and writers the least of all. RIAA can walk into a college and demand the Internet access records of students on the hunch that music has been illegaly downloaded. If a large library is found, the assumption is that the music is illegal unless the user can prove ownership. Burden of proof rests on the accused. Which IMO is kind of the opposite of "innocent until proven guilty.

An artist can recover costs and fees as long as he or she can prove ownership of the original, but they would have to get a court order if they wanted to access the records of the people they were investigating. The chances of getting one are slim to nonexistant unless they already have overpowering proof of copyright infringement.

In both cases, copyright infringement is based on the use of intellectual property....not the possession of tangible goods. If the music is paid for once, but used twice; the second user is guilty of copyright infringement and subject to penalty. No tangible goods need to be present. Likewise with the image. Use of the image is based on payment rendered. Unless you sold all rights, a customer has limited rights to use the image. Perhaps they only own the right to display it. Or maybe they have the rights to reproduce it once. Ownership of the print is not ownership of the image.

From the author's standpoint, a college textbook can be resold over and over and over again. The use of the intellectual material is not in question but "possession of the print". When colleges resell a textbook, they make as much as three time the profit they make selling a new copy of the book. Yet not one cent is returned to the publishing company or the author. Colleges selling books over and over again and buying them back for pennies on the dollar is nothing more than a complex rental scheme where the user has the option of keeping the product by paying retail price up front.

Until all copyright protection is applied equally, I don't think that poor girl stands a chance. If she was a multimillion copy CD, she'd have an open-shut case.

i am, sadly, employed in the music industry rather than the photography industry at the present. i disagree with some of your comments about the music biz and copyright.

first off, the RIAA needs a court order to get records from a university, just as any other entity would. unless of course the university gives them up willingly, which they might do. the RIAA isn't a police force. they just act like it sometimes. they are a trade organization and do represent major and large independent labels, and make no claims to represent the artists themselves.

ASCAP, BMI and SESAC represent publishers and songwriters (sometimes the same thing, as in my case). i'm a member of ASCAP, and they've done a pretty good job, collecting royalties all over the world for me. (very small ones, alas.) they went after CNN Headline News on their writers' behalf at one point, and i got a nice little check from that. if i found a usage that i didn't get paid for, they'd probably look into it. fortunately i've never had that problem.

where i *have* had problems is record companies using my music on compilations without licensing it. this has happened a couple of times, and it's always been a little label, probably run by one or two people, who then distributes it through a larger (but not major) distribution company. i can't go after them. why? because i don't have the 'front money' to successfully sue them. it would take hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the little label who stole my music would simply vanish. i could go after the distributor, but even if i did, it would be tricky and expensive.

other than getting someone to 'cease and desist', it takes money on both the offender's and the victim's part to make anything happen. some offenders are lawsuit-proof, and many victims can't afford it.

"If the music is paid for once, but used twice; the second user is guilty of copyright infringement and subject to penalty." that's not quite accurate, as it's more complicated than that. music usage isn't technically what's paid for. what's paid for is the right to publish (make copies of), and the right to broadcast music. you charge a radio station (or a TV station, bar or restaurant etc) for the right to play your song to people. you charge a record company for the right to manufacturer and distribute your song. (i'm not addressing here the issue that the owner of a recording is often different than the owner of the underlying song, which thankfully doesn't apply to the image industry.)

so if a record company pays you to sell x number of CDs, that's the "usage". you don't get more money if someone sells the physical copy to someone else. the rights being sold were to manufacture and distribute, not to play in the consumer's home. a consumer can't then broadcast that music, i.e. play it for their friends (technically), but more realistically, doesn't have the right to put it on the radio or play it in front of a crowd. the consumer can sell his/her copy of the disc to someone else though. a license isn't transferred to the new owner, because original purchaser doesn't have a license. the consumer may simply enjoy the CD in his own home. posting it on the internet is distribution (needs a license). using it in a photo slide show is a broadcast (needs a license).

copyright infringement is not based on usage, it's based on the 'right to copy' and distribute. there's nothing illegal about colleges reselling textbooks, just like there's nothing wrong if i resold an Ansel Adams print i'd legitimately bought. if i've bought the rights to "use" an image for my website, i'm actually buying the rights to distribute it to viewers of my website. they're making copies from my server onto their local computer, even if only temporary.

so my point: things aren't really all wine and roses here on the music side of things. :) 80% of musicians do it for the love of it, 19% also make a little money off it, 1% actually make a living at it, and only a very small fraction of those actually drive sports cars. just like in photography. all percentages are approximate.

unfortunately, copyright infringement isn't pursued as a criminal matter usually, but rather a civil matter. and that means that action is taken only when there's big money involved.

as an aside, i joined a professional photographers association a couple of months ago, and have been to two meetings (i'm "aspiring"). both times, i heard some pro complain about how no one wanted to give license-free music for use with slide shows, and how what a wonderful opportunity it was for a musician to be heard by a bunch of (probably bored) photographers. and yet i'm sure if the situations were reversed, a photographer would be somewhat annoyed that a musician was using his/her images as part of his stage show.

[cyrus]

registering work is a somewhat costly but certainly time consuming exercise in the US, one undertaken by many professionals, but probably not that many amateurs...

This is unfortunate because actually getting a copyright in the US is not difficult.
You have to fill out one form (shortform VA in most cases) and pay $45 for basic registration - and you mail that form and check to the Copyright Office along with a CD that contains your images (as many as you can fit). That's it.

More info: http://www.peterkrogh.com/copyright/main.html

[tim atherton]

No, it's not that difficult, probably easier as a process for "amateurs" in some way than say a pro photojournalist who might be producing thousands of images a week. Sure, most build it into their workflow, but it's one more thing...

Apparently the Copyright Office is finally looking seriously at online registration.

(though it's not actually "getting" copyright, the photographer already has copyright the moment they clocked the shutter - it's registering it - the two are somewhat different)

[cyrus]

Yes you're right I should have said registering a copyright not getting a copyright.