[Help] Breach of Copyright. Help!

[shingle]

Can I clear something up. 'Royalty free' doesn't mean that you can use an image without paying for it, It is in fact a license model that is becoming less popular. Some of my images are 'royalty free' on Alamy, it just means that the user can use the image without making specific conditions of use with Alamy. You used to get more money from a 'royalty free' use than a 'rights managed' use, but nowadays in order to sell an image 'royalty free' you have to have model and property releases to go with the image that you didn't need in the past, hence why its becoming a less popular licensing route with photographers as well as agencies.

 

[shingle]

I am sympathetic to the OP, as I deem it to be the fault of the web designer, but the general idea that you should pay more if you're caught out stealing photographers images I'm a hundred per cent in agreement with. And the sooner this message gets out to the general public the better.

Just because it's on the t'internet doesn't make it free, photography has a value. Particularly mine

 

[shingle]

Can I also make a point about crediting or not crediting the photographer.
People shouldn't think, oh, I'll say that I'll credit the photographer if I'm found out. This might appeal to an amateur/hobbyist as they probably never see their work in print or online. Crediting me, as a pro, wouldn't work as I suspect that it wouldn't with many professionals, my work is always being used to support articles in newspapers, magazines and other editorial publications ... and I have bills to pay like everyone else.

 

[shingle]

That was a fascinating read - thanks for posting.

It's interesting this isn't it. I have a small local history website, and often 'pinch' things found elsewhere (but mainly old things - so not presumably a worry). I try and credit where they came from, but sometimes I can't remember, or they themselves haven't any acknowledgements. I have also reproduced quite a number of old postcards and prints - and the copyright around these seems to be really hazy.

On the other side of the coin, quite a few of my own photos have ended up on other people's websites. I did recently contact the National Trust and pointed out that it was a bit cheeky for such a large organisation to be pinching my photo and not crediting me. They immediately apologised and put my name on it. My favourite was a photo of mine I spotted on a CD cover. The publisher was most apologetic and offered me a free CD.

You can probably guess why I turned down their offer!

View attachment 147150

I think everyone needs to be a bit careful these days, but to address your point about copyright being a bit hazy, I'm afraid copyright will remain with the photographer for their lifetime plus 70 years so I hope that those old postcards and prints are from the Victorian era.

Offered a free CD there's taking the pi$$ and then there's taking the absolute pi$$

*edit* offered a free CD, so funny, that's made my weekend.

 

[shingle]

I was also wondering about the Alamy watermark. And that makes any court case really difficult - because if the OP's website editor took the image from somewhere that wasn't actually Alamy direct, then how would Permission Machine actually prove that it was from Alamy in the first place and not from somewhere else? I guess PM's 'client' is Alamy - but actually it's the photographer's copyright (I assume). The photographer would presumably have to prove to the court's satisfaction that the only way the OPs website could have obtained the image was from someone else who had published it. The photographer themself is probably unaware this is going on, and may not want to be bound up in some court case.

I wonder if actually the answer is for the OP to approach the actual photographer (who holds the copyright), and offer them the basic fee. Then Alamy can no longer pursue the matter because on whose behalf would they be acting?

You could try I suppose, but as of last August Alamy contributors have had to accept a new contract part of which involves Alamy going after copyright infringers on behalf of the photographer. So I think in all probability the photographer will refer you back to Alamy.

 

[Happy Exile]

Exactly this. The general attitude to the theft of intellectual property by the general public is appalling. The biggest problem being how simple it is now because capturing images off the likes of Facebook and Instagram is too easy and people thinking “if it’s on Facebook, it’s fair game.” Unfortunately, my experience has led to me not sharing my work as widely as I used to.

I had a bit of writing about some local history published in a magazine a few years ago, accompanied by a photo I'd taken, that was all lifted from the magazine's website by someone and put on their personal Facebook page without any kind of credit or admission even when people were telling him they liked it. When I called him out on it his excuse was "I found it on Google so thought it was OK."

 

[Bodian]

A neighbour is an artist, and was featured in a County magazine a few months ago. They asked him to send a photo of him at work - which I took for him. He sent it in, and told them to credit me.

Lo and behold - they just published it in their article alongside their text. No credit or acknowledgement - nothing (so it looks like their photo). Now - I bet if I scanned those pages, and put it on my website as one of my photos - they would be having a go at me for reproducing their magazine!

 

[shingle]

That was a fascinating read - thanks for posting.

It's interesting this isn't it. I have a small local history website, and often 'pinch' things found elsewhere (but mainly old things - so not presumably a worry). I try and credit where they came from, but sometimes I can't remember, or they themselves haven't any acknowledgements. I have also reproduced quite a number of old postcards and prints - and the copyright around these seems to be really hazy.

On the other side of the coin, quite a few of my own photos have ended up on other people's websites. I did recently contact the National Trust and pointed out that it was a bit cheeky for such a large organisation to be pinching my photo and not crediting me. They immediately apologised and put my name on it. My favourite was a photo of mine I spotted on a CD cover. The publisher was most apologetic and offered me a free CD.

You can probably guess why I turned down their offer!

View attachment 147150

Sorry Bodian, but I have to ask how it all panned out with the CD copyright infringer, Mrs Shingle wants to know

 

[Bodian]

Sorry Bodian, but I have to ask how it all panned out with the CD copyright infringer, Mrs Shingle wants to know

Well, thereby hangs a whole tale in itself.

He was so grovellingly apologetic and obviously felt so bad about it that I didn't do anything (except refuse his CD of awful organ music). I think it's just a one-man band producing the CDs. In fact, the reason I contacted him wasn't so much that he had used my photo without permission, I was more concerned as to where he had got it from, and that he might actually have paid someone / some organisation for the rights to use the photo. That is, I wasn't too bothered about him using it, but I didn't want someone else actually selling my photo.

But also, he helped me learn about these things, as I asked him where he had got it from. He gave me a link to our work's website, which had a collection of 'free-to-use' photos on it. Now - this raises the point made by an earlier poster - 'free-to-use' doesn't mean 'copyright-free' - and there was actually a note on the page saying 'credit the photographer'. But more to the point, I didn't even know my photo was on the free-to-use collection! It was my own photo, but I had used it in a presentation and so had saved it on the work network - where one of our communications team later found it when trawling through looking for nice pictures to put out there and 'promote' the place.

So I learned a lesson there. I've given up with this particular image as it now appears all over the place - it was on an 'organo-phosphates' conference flyer, and also makes up the backdrop to a you-tube 'learn English' video. With something like 'it sometimes rains in the Lake District' being the words to learn at the time it's showing. It's also on quite a lot of holiday cottage websites - so, once it's out it's out isn't it. The only person I was actually irritated with was a photographer offering courses in the Lake District, and for some reason he had this image on his slideshow. I did actually email him and pointed out that if he was having to steal other photographers' images to promote his own photography courses instead of using his own - then he must be a pretty crap tutor! He never replied - but I noticed he removed it.

More recently. I also learned about 'Creative Commons'. I put a few photos on geograph, and not long ago when browsing on ebay, I came across my own photo for sale!! https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/234349187706?_trkparms=ispr%3D1&hash=item36904cd27a:g:U80AAOSwvUVhxOpI&amdata=enc%3AAQAGAAAA8DdMAAatzvBQ9MtN%2FC14M7ThaYhDAG6XDYJIJYB9iUf4AUHvkJyI9OJ%2BSQZXIXUoF8JbbWDrBQ7UFv1e2pytMTMrZHshBvO5Vz3AYGZscA9wVsekZPpqwisCljDdKxIvFxtG3qNgAlZHAZVAVlcbqSGAr4QI9lHXkGPAhGeyjHmrJidcwD07UdcAzoHs7F1zsdiUdr9UTtxwny%2Bc5Zb1bF0GHqn6wY1bq0BudabrLWj6Glp5GVlOYaqBtay9ZeI2dVBR1rzxw5a65WHWQx%2FS%2FPSKtVRWD3VdUsIr0XgP1AqgQpgAKuPyBU%2FwcPYGf5UDeA%3D%3D%7Ctkp%3ABFBMgsedsYpg Apparently that's perfectly legit - and I gave away any royalty rights I had. Can't quite see how many people pay £2 for a 6x4 print - but this chap seems to have a whole ebay shop selling other people's photos from geograph.

So - all-in-all a fascinating learning experience.

 

[Bozza]

I had a bit of writing about some local history published in a magazine a few years ago, accompanied by a photo I'd taken, that was all lifted from the magazine's website by someone and put on their personal Facebook page without any kind of credit or admission even when people were telling him they liked it. When I called him out on it his excuse was "I found it on Google so thought it was OK."

I wonder why these copyright trolls don't go after facebook, twitter, instagram and the like.

A veritable treasure trove of "borrowed" images, endlessly reposted and reposted with no fees paid and the original photographer long since forgotten.

Rich pickings for image theft, you'd have thought.

I wonder if it's just considered easier to try and bully small site owners and hobbyists, many of whom will cave to the pseudo-legal mumbo jumbo and the threats of "handing it over to our solicitors".

 

[Triggaaar]

I've given up with this particular image as it now appears all over the place - it was on an 'organo-phosphates' conference flyer, and also makes up the backdrop to a you-tube 'learn English' video. With something like 'it sometimes rains in the Lake District' being the words to learn at the time it's showing. It's also on quite a lot of holiday cottage websites - so, once it's out it's out isn't it.

If that many people have used it, surely it's worth a bit of cash? Unless your work putting it on a 'free' section somehow gave it away?

The only person I was actually irritated with was a photographer offering courses in the Lake District, and for some reason he had this image on his slideshow. I did actually email him and pointed out that if he was having to steal other photographers' images to promote his own photography courses instead of using his own - then he must be a pretty crap tutor! He never replied

'course he didn't, the little shit

More recently. I also learned about 'Creative Commons'. I put a few photos on geograph...
Apparently that's perfectly legit - and I gave away any royalty rights I had.

Have you accepted giving away royalty rights when posting on geograph?

 

[Wozza]

I wonder why these copyright trolls don't go after facebook, twitter, instagram and the like.

They're all protected by ‘safe harbour' laws.

Whilst they are 'publishers', they don't actively select or pre-moderate users' content, and therefore aren't held responsible for content posted by users.

Instead, they operate 'notice and takedown' policies (eg https://www.facebook.com/help/325058084212425)

 

[Bodian]

Have you accepted giving away royalty rights when posting on geograph?

Seemingly, yes. Not so much geograph themselves but the 'creative commons' licence within it.

"So anyone can "make money" out of my images?

The Creative Commons licence would allow someone to take an image from the site and sell it or use it commercially, but they must give you credit.

However, [by default] we only retain a screen-resolution copy of your photographs (up to 640x640 pixels), not your original print quality upload. This screen-resolution image will always be available free of charge from the Geograph website, and can be found by search engines that support discovery of Creative Commons content. In other words, there's not much scope for trying to build a commercial photo archive from the images."

 

[Wozza]

Seemingly, yes. Not so much geograph themselves but the 'creative commons' licence within it.

"So anyone can "make money" out of my images?

The Creative Commons licence would allow someone to take an image from the site and sell it or use it commercially, but they must give you credit.

However, [by default] we only retain a screen-resolution copy of your photographs (up to 640x640 pixels), not your original print quality upload. This screen-resolution image will always be available free of charge from the Geograph website, and can be found by search engines that support discovery of Creative Commons content. In other words, there's not much scope for trying to build a commercial photo archive from the images."

Worth noting that there are several different levels of Creative Commons licences.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/

 

[shingle]

Well, thereby hangs a whole tale in itself.

He was so grovellingly apologetic and obviously felt so bad about it that I didn't do anything (except refuse his CD of awful organ music). I think it's just a one-man band producing the CDs. In fact, the reason I contacted him wasn't so much that he had used my photo without permission, I was more concerned as to where he had got it from, and that he might actually have paid someone / some organisation for the rights to use the photo. That is, I wasn't too bothered about him using it, but I didn't want someone else actually selling my photo.

But also, he helped me learn about these things, as I asked him where he had got it from. He gave me a link to our work's website, which had a collection of 'free-to-use' photos on it. Now - this raises the point made by an earlier poster - 'free-to-use' doesn't mean 'copyright-free' - and there was actually a note on the page saying 'credit the photographer'. But more to the point, I didn't even know my photo was on the free-to-use collection! It was my own photo, but I had used it in a presentation and so had saved it on the work network - where one of our communications team later found it when trawling through looking for nice pictures to put out there and 'promote' the place.

So I learned a lesson there. I've given up with this particular image as it now appears all over the place - it was on an 'organo-phosphates' conference flyer, and also makes up the backdrop to a you-tube 'learn English' video. With something like 'it sometimes rains in the Lake District' being the words to learn at the time it's showing. It's also on quite a lot of holiday cottage websites - so, once it's out it's out isn't it. The only person I was actually irritated with was a photographer offering courses in the Lake District, and for some reason he had this image on his slideshow. I did actually email him and pointed out that if he was having to steal other photographers' images to promote his own photography courses instead of using his own - then he must be a pretty crap tutor! He never replied - but I noticed he removed it.

More recently. I also learned about 'Creative Commons'. I put a few photos on geograph, and not long ago when browsing on ebay, I came across my own photo for sale!! https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/234349187706?_trkparms=ispr%3D1&hash=item36904cd27a:g:U80AAOSwvUVhxOpI&amdata=enc%3AAQAGAAAA8DdMAAatzvBQ9MtN%2FC14M7ThaYhDAG6XDYJIJYB9iUf4AUHvkJyI9OJ%2BSQZXIXUoF8JbbWDrBQ7UFv1e2pytMTMrZHshBvO5Vz3AYGZscA9wVsekZPpqwisCljDdKxIvFxtG3qNgAlZHAZVAVlcbqSGAr4QI9lHXkGPAhGeyjHmrJidcwD07UdcAzoHs7F1zsdiUdr9UTtxwny%2Bc5Zb1bF0GHqn6wY1bq0BudabrLWj6Glp5GVlOYaqBtay9ZeI2dVBR1rzxw5a65WHWQx%2FS%2FPSKtVRWD3VdUsIr0XgP1AqgQpgAKuPyBU%2FwcPYGf5UDeA%3D%3D%7Ctkp%3ABFBMgsedsYpg Apparently that's perfectly legit - and I gave away any royalty rights I had. Can't quite see how many people pay £2 for a 6x4 print - but this chap seems to have a whole ebay shop selling other people's photos from geograph.

So - all-in-all a fascinating learning experience.

That is terrible, Lake District 'Photographer' needs shooting.

 

[Wozza]

Time to tap the unfathomable depth of knowledge that is NSC.

Mrs McT has a small business and the person who set up the website used some images one of which was (unbeknownst to her) owned by Alamy. The images were not integral to the website so there has been no real financial gain from their use, they were more used for illustrative purposes.

She has received a demand for £420 for unauthorised use of the image which includes an unspecified amount for the time and expertise used to track down the unauthorised use. She has taken down the image (and any others that we were not sure of the copyright status of) and paid the licence fee for the image in question (£35.00)

The company chasing for the £420 has said that they will take that from the first demand and so she now owes them £385.00. This seems like a bit of a scam - whilst she has used copyright material, she has not gained financially from doing so, there is no material loss to the copyright holder and whilst she recognises the mistake and accepts that she should have been more careful, the sum involved seems excessive.

She is inclined to offer an amount - say £50.00 - for full and final settlement just to make this go away.

Any advice?

What happened with this anyway?