Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-28-2010, 09:02 PM   #31
Veteran Member
Mike Cash's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Japan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,950
No, you misunderstood me. What I was saying is that putting your photo in a publicly accessible place does not cancel your copyright. No more than leaving the keys in your car means you are giving away ownership of it. In either case you make it easier for your property to be stolen but the theft is still a theft all the same.

11-29-2010, 11:56 AM   #32
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
jpzk's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Québec
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,251
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Mike Cash Quote
No, you misunderstood me. What I was saying is that putting your photo in a publicly accessible place does not cancel your copyright. No more than leaving the keys in your car means you are giving away ownership of it. In either case you make it easier for your property to be stolen but the theft is still a theft all the same.
Gotcha!

OK, so I had a response today:

1. they apologized about the issue
2. they dared telling me that any photos submitted to their site becomes property of the said website; in actual facts, this photo was NEVER submitted by ME to them.
3. they will fix the issue by giving proper credit ("retroactively" - added by me) in their "archives"! ???

I'll be a good sport and accept their apology but I did mention that this photo was hijacked and then put on their site, which should now be their responsibility.

I also told them to contact the person who goofed and that they should not to accept further submittal from her.

JP
11-29-2010, 12:05 PM   #33
Veteran Member
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,666
I usually send an invoice with a thank you for taking interest in my work and remind them to contact me in future before using an item so I can offer them an appropriate price for the usage. I rarely get paid (though do occasionally) but i do find it gets pretty prompt reaction (If possible I send it to the accounts payable for the company running the site. Now the reason i get paid occasionally is I cc a friend's email who is an entertainment lawyer (with his permission, he just deletes the emails lol)
usually the images come down the same day. If I don't get an email back I will follow up, but most times there is some kind of immediate reaction
11-29-2010, 12:14 PM   #34
Veteran Member
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,666
ok looking at the reply you got inform them that since this is the action they chose to take you are submitting an invoice for web usage (I'd say $400 for a 1 year non exclusive usage is fair, or the option of $2000 for exclusive usage - really any price you want as they won't pay it i can guarantee it) and expect it paid withing 30 days or you will turn it over to your lawyer
they should respond by removing it
Remind them that All copyright and control remains with you and that retroactively applying credit to a photo that was stolen is not good enough
Personally I would demand it's removal as a point of principle. I usually have the issue with work I've posted in Flickr despite having the copyright listed and in the Exif data
i've had stuff show up in european travel guides, city websites, music magazines, beer ads.... the list goes on threat of legal action and an invoice are the way I start now having gotten nowhere in the past by being nice.

good luck

11-29-2010, 12:15 PM   #35
Veteran Member
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,666
QuoteOriginally posted by Manel Brand Quote
That's the way! So you know the song (...it ain't the one by Led Zep). Well done.
only solution really, i usually make it a punitive amount (essentially a stupidity tax)
11-29-2010, 12:20 PM   #36
Veteran Member
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,666
QuoteOriginally posted by jpzk Quote
So, if I read you properly, you are saying or implying that all and any photos submitted/posted anywhere on the web can be freely misappropriated and/or stolen without causing copyright damages, but by the same token I could also claim copyrights "rights"?
It certainly is an paradoxal situation, becoming a little too complicated.

I suppose the best I can do at this point is to wait for a reply from the hosting website and/or from the person who used the photo.

Thanks for the reply.

JP
i believe what he was saying is although you retain copyright posting online makes the theft of your work easy.
I'm considering setting up a flash website for my work and dropping any other gallery (ie flickr deviant art ....) Not that you can't thieve from flash it's just a fair bit harder
11-29-2010, 12:24 PM   #37
Veteran Member
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,666
BTW they are a charitable organization, doesn't excuse it, was this something someone posted in one of the contests?

12-02-2010, 05:16 PM   #38
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 883
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
ok looking at the reply you got inform them that since this is the action they chose to take you are submitting an invoice for web usage (I'd say $400 for a 1 year non exclusive usage is fair, or the option of $2000 for exclusive usage - really any price you want as they won't pay it i can guarantee it) and expect it paid withing 30 days or you will turn it over to your lawyer
they should respond by removing it
Remind them that All copyright and control remains with you and that retroactively applying credit to a photo that was stolen is not good enough
Personally I would demand it's removal as a point of principle. I usually have the issue with work I've posted in Flickr despite having the copyright listed and in the Exif data
i've had stuff show up in european travel guides, city websites, music magazines, beer ads.... the list goes on threat of legal action and an invoice are the way I start now having gotten nowhere in the past by being nice.

good luck
I completely agree with this post. You deserve to be payed, and that's the bottom line. We're talking about stolen property here. Apply this scenario to another piece of stolen property and see how ridiculous it seems. In reality, even paying for it seems like not enough. Again, stolen property.

Let's say you go to a car dealership and just take whatever car suits your fancy. Then the dealership finds out that you took their car without their knowledge and without paying for it. Which of the following responses from you is likely to be agreed to:

a) Sorry, I'll give you credit for having made the car.
b) Sorry, I'll just pay you for it. No harm done.
c) Didn't know you felt that way about it, you can have it back.
d) Someone else parked this car in my driveway, so it actually belongs to me now.


And now back to reality. You'll give the car back, possibly be forced to pay for it anyways, be prosecuted for grand theft auto, and probably go to jail.

So in all honesty, it's incredibly lenient to only have to pay for, and then get to keep, the thing that you have already stolen. They took your property, they owe you money.
12-02-2010, 05:20 PM   #39
Veteran Member
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,666
QuoteOriginally posted by FullertonImages Quote
I completely agree with this post. You deserve to be payed, and that's the bottom line. We're talking about stolen property here. Apply this scenario to another piece of stolen property and see how ridiculous it seems. In reality, even paying for it seems like not enough. Again, stolen property.

Let's say you go to a car dealership and just take whatever car suits your fancy. Then the dealership finds out that you took their car without their knowledge and without paying for it. Which of the following responses from you is likely to be agreed to:

a) Sorry, I'll give you credit for having made the car.
b) Sorry, I'll just pay you for it. No harm done.
c) Didn't know you felt that way about it, you can have it back.
d) Someone else parked this car in my driveway, so it actually belongs to me now.


And now back to reality. You'll give the car back, possibly be forced to pay for it anyways, be prosecuted for grand theft auto, and probably go to jail.

So in all honesty, it's incredibly lenient to only have to pay for, and then get to keep, the thing that you have already stolen. They took your property, they owe you money.
exactly and people i know are baffled by my outrage when it happens to me
12-02-2010, 05:26 PM   #40
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 883
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
exactly and people i know are baffled by my outrage when it happens to me
I've had it happen to me a few times (that I know of...), and every time I've been payed for it. I've never even been met with that much objection to it. You just have to be assertive and make it clear that you knowthe law and that they are in clear copyright infringement. You can't approach them all timid, and already just about ready to say, "aww, it's ok, just use it" and expect them to pay you. If they sense thatthey can push for getting to keep using it for free, they will do it. If you don't respect the value of your work, no one else will.
12-02-2010, 10:32 PM   #41
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 15,903
QuoteOriginally posted by jpzk Quote
Gotcha!

OK, so I had a response today:

1. they apologized about the issue
2. they dared telling me that any photos submitted to their site becomes property of the said website; in actual facts, this photo was NEVER submitted by ME to them.
3. they will fix the issue by giving proper credit ("retroactively" - added by me) in their "archives"! ???

I'll be a good sport and accept their apology but I did mention that this photo was hijacked and then put on their site, which should now be their responsibility.

I also told them to contact the person who goofed and that they should not to accept further submittal from her.

JP
To be honest, I'd take a somewhat hard nosed approach than you are taking.
I'd tell them in no uncertain terms that because you, as the original owner of copyright didn't submit the picture, they have no rights to it and to take it down, no ifs ands or buts.
Period.

They've told you that any image submitted to their website becomes their property, by letting it go, you are ceding your copyright.
12-03-2010, 12:30 AM   #42
Veteran Member
adwb's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Bristol UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,636
you need to take a hard approach and prosucute your claim with vigour and the full stength of the law. It is the only way to make them think twice in the future. The question to be asked is how many times in the past have they done this to someone else and got away with it?
12-03-2010, 08:03 AM   #43
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 15,903
QuoteOriginally posted by adwb Quote
you need to take a hard approach and prosucute your claim with vigour and the full stength of the law. It is the only way to make them think twice in the future. The question to be asked is how many times in the past have they done this to someone else and got away with it?

Not sure if I'd go that far except as a last resort. My read is that the company honestly thought they had permission and so used the image accordingly.
IE: an honest mistake, not something done with malice.

In Canada, copyright is criminal law, I believe, so it wouldn't be the OP pushing the claim with vigor, it would be the Crown, which might have better things to do.
12-04-2010, 06:56 PM   #44
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ste-Anne des Plaines, Qc., Canada
Posts: 2,013
QuoteOriginally posted by Ira Quote
I can't retain copyright for any images taken at Hearst Castle in California, because the Hearst Foundation wants to retain all profit from any shots taken on the grounds.
You retain the copyright. You just can't use the picture commercially, but they can't either, unless there is a specific agreement between the two parties.
12-04-2010, 07:25 PM   #45
Veteran Member
mtroute's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Portland OR
Posts: 533
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote

DO you care to share how this shot "leaked out" I know exactly, for any shots I have taken, where they are potentially exposed for loss of copywrite through placement on the internet, or on FTP sites that I have made open to others.
there is no loss of copyright for placement on the Internet. Just because something is on the net does not automatically mean you lose your rights. If a terms of service on a site you put it on grants them a license you still own the copyright.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
photo industry, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Just Got Permission code4code5 Photographic Technique 11 02-07-2009 10:47 AM
LBA AND Permission to Buy MShawn63 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 21 06-03-2008 02:59 PM
Just permission or waivers? little laker General Talk 8 05-31-2007 12:28 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:05 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top