Of course, the article doesnt identify where the family had the photo posted but it had to be some high-traffic and image rich site like Flickr. Image trolls can easily find any number of photos matching what they are looking for and can steal them with near impunity. Frankly, since the photo was of a US family and the store was in the Czech Republic, it was only a miracle that the use was discovered.
I also find the store owner's excuse very implausible...
Mario Bertuccio, who owns the Grazie store in Prague, said the photo was from the Internet. Details were sparse, but he said he thought it was computer-generated. When told it was a real photo — of a real family — he said he started taking steps to remove it.
"We'll be happy to write an e-mail with our apology," said Bertuccio.
He "thought it was computer-generated"??? COUGHCOUGHBSCOUGHCOUGH
Yeah Right!!!
Now, in this case, there was no real harm done, the photo was not used to show the family in a bad light nor were there any particular misrepresentations made. However, the photographer does deserve commercial usage payment for the use of her image, even if it has already been removed from circulation.
Danielle Smith has at least learned her lesson...
Smith said next time she posts a photo on the Internet, she's going to lower the resolution or add an electronic watermark to make it hard to reproduce.
Many people like to use Flickr and other similar high-traffic sites because they believe it gives their photos extra or higher "exposure" but that exposure is far more likely to end in your images being stolen than in them being purchased or the photographer being hailed as the next Ansel Adams.
Naturally, posting any image anywhere online carries some risks, but you decrease the chances of theft somewhat by using sites like Pentax Forums, Photo.net, or the various upper-end image sites like Zenfilio or Smug Mug which make it harder for theives to misapproriate your intellectual property.
Mike
p.s. Whatever you do, if you use Flickr, DO NOT agree to their "Creative Commons" licensing model.
Last edited by MRRiley; 06-11-2009 at 07:50 AM.
Reason: typos
This does not worry me. I wouldnt mind whoever uses my images like this, just like the family said. What harm is it to me? While the cats away the mice will play.
If a major commercial organisation were using my image for promotion, or was making money out of photos i took for them under false pretences, that would be a different story.
But when you put stuff into the public domain you trade publicity for security, and im sure my photos are ending up on a lot more blogs, linked to my site, than there are czech businesses with a poor concept of image sourcing.
"Mommy blogger" Danielle Smith said that the photo taken of her family last year got sent to family and friends, and was posted on her blog and a few social networking sites. The photo showed her and her husband Jeff holding their two young children.
...
Among the images displayed on the results page is a 1MB copy of the Kelly's photo that was uploaded to TwitterMoms, a social networking site created using the Ning platform.
...
She said next time she posts a photo on the internet, she's going to lower the resolution or add an electronic watermark to make it hard to reproduce.
There's a reason why any photos I upload, unless for special purposes, now have longest side 1024px and with a watermark on it as well. And no personal photos either, unless it's to places where there are privacy settings to restrict those who can view them.
I agree with the "no personal pics" and I'm not a pro so no real loss on the other stuff, just aggrevation if I see my prize pic elsewhere. But its also aggrevating to watermark pics to the extent that its worthwhile. Something small in the corner is fine but what good does that do for protection if it gets cropped anyway?
Mike -- Why is Zenfolio better protection than Flickr other than the fact that its not as well known?
something to do w/ flickr's terms and agreements i think
e.g. there was a big controversy over the flickr API and how it can override your settings, something to that effect, not sure if it had been resolved
the images i post on flickr are 1000 pixels on the longest side and have a stamp in the corner. but there's also the exif with my copyright and my name as creator on them as well. for all the good it does but it's there. so they're small with what i think is probably limited usability.
my problem with the locked sites is that there are certain people (parents of my kids' teammates, old friends from around the country) that like to go and peruse. if everything is buttoned down tight then the people i WANT to see can't. Yes I know they can get a pass and whatnot but if it's that much work they won't. When (yes i said when) I need to post things as proofs for clients then I'll get a smugmug account.
I recall seeing that the Flickr APIs would let you download full size images in some cases where they shouldn't have. Also, a lot of people unknowingly license their photos very liberally by putting them on Flickr. Facebook is even worse - they have unlimited, transferable rights to anything you upload there, until you delete it.
Personally, I use SmugMug for this exact reason. I'm not a pro, but if someone's making money off my photos I definitely want a cut or at the very least photo credit and bragging rights. And who knows, I may try to turn a profit at some point -- that'll be easier if there aren't a bunch of pirated copies floating around for the taking.
Mike -- Why is Zenfolio better protection than Flickr other than the fact that its not as well known?
Zenfolio, at least with the Premium account, allows you to apply automatic watermarks to all images. They also protect (at all account levels) your images from right-click downloads or "drag to the desktop" copying. You can also load full resolution images for use by the printing company while only showing reduced size/resolution images to viewers.
Most importantly, from a legal standpoint, Zenfolio (and most other dedicated professional or advanced amateur photo web hosts) has clear notices on every page that all content is copyrighted by the photographer. Flickr does not have anything even close and social networking sites don't even know there is such a thing as copyright.
And for those of you who don't care if your photos are used, misused, stolen or whatever, that is your prerogative. I am simply pointing out an example of why people who value their images should be careful where they post them. The image in question is proof positive that almost any image is commercially valuable. I would have charged at least several hundred dollars for a similar business to have used a comparable image of mine for an advertising campaign. And if they had gone to a stock photo agency they would have paid as well. The point is that people think that just because it is on the internet it is free to use and this is not legally true in all cases.
The store owner/copyright infringer's protestations that he thought it was computer generated are ridiculous. He just got caught with his finger in the cookie jar and was looking for an out.
Mike
Last edited by MRRiley; 07-02-2009 at 12:17 PM.
Reason: typo
the images i post on flickr are 1000 pixels on the longest side and have a stamp in the corner. but there's also the exif with my copyright and my name as creator on them as well. for all the good it does but it's there. so they're small with what i think is probably limited usability.
my problem with the locked sites is that there are certain people (parents of my kids' teammates, old friends from around the country) that like to go and peruse. if everything is buttoned down tight then the people i WANT to see can't. Yes I know they can get a pass and whatnot but if it's that much work they won't. When (yes i said when) I need to post things as proofs for clients then I'll get a smugmug account.
Mel,
If you don't already include it, you should also make sure the "Rights Usage" field of the EXIF has the following statement...
"All Rights Reserved! No use without the express permission of the photographer (Creative Commons license not recognized or authorized)"
All of the stuff on my Zenfolio site is visible to anyone, nothing is locked down, though I do have the ability to do that for any gallery I want to (say for wedding proofs). Zenfolio's basic 1GB account is only $25 a year. Jump to the unlimited storage account for only $40 a year. Fess up with $100 a year for a Premium account and you get unlimited storage and automatic watermarks and full e-commerce capabilities (and a bunch of other qwirks).
I'm well on my way to paying for my premium membership after less than 2 weeks on the site...
wow mike. i'll have to look into that. but ugh. transfer everything over that i have on flickr? with my dialup connection? that in itself is a major discouraging factor (dialup because i live in the boonies!)
wow mike. i'll have to look into that. but ugh. transfer everything over that i have on flickr? with my dialup connection? that in itself is a major discouraging factor (dialup because i live in the boonies!)
Mel, why don't you keep Flickr and use Zenfolio for the really good stuff and transfer it over gradually?
