[aleonx3]

Hope you recovered!

Thanks... I mean "plaque"... arh... English spelling...

[BrianR]

I'm guessing that Facebook has a picture matching algorithm, and did me a favour by putting it in my feed ! Too big a coincidence to be anything else I think.

I'd guess it's more likely a semi-coincidence? If FB has a reason to think you're interested in insects (like the fact that you posted one and possibly text to indicate that's what it was), it will then try to spam you with insect related things, and the poke is pretty popular.

I ran google searches on the images in that article, and couldn't see an obvious common denominator (I was wondering if they all came from flickr). Some were from stock sites (though may have been lifted from other sources by the poke).

Good Luck!

[stevebrot]

The Poke seems to have pulled it.

FWIW...I have found mine out in the wild before and have had good luck with take-down. The only time that was hard was Tumblr where the image had been reshared hundreds of times.


Steve

[rrstuff]

You should send them an invoice. They will most likely take it down.

In the future, you could use image google search > by picture to look for places where your photographs appear.
I found a few websites using my photos this way, but in every single case a single email was sufficient to have them take it down.

[Ian.morgan]

While I sympathise with the OP on the dilemma, I fail to see the correlation between the photo posted and

Of course, you may have been looking after they ripped off someone else's image, and replaced mine

---------- Post added 09-14-16 at 03:10 PM ----------



Original image before it was replaced....

[AquaDome]

It is important to make contact every time you find your unlicensed images "in the wild". Failing to protect your images sets a legal precedent. If you fail to respond to license violations, it could be claimed that your "defacto" position is to allow your images to be used. This is why big companies always send nasty letters to anyone who even comes close to their trademarks or licensed intellectual property. If they don't act, they weaken their position to act when it is truly necessary.

[aleonx3]

Of course, you may have been looking after they ripped off someone else's image, and replaced mine

---------- Post added 09-14-16 at 03:10 PM ----------



Original image before it was replaced....

Ah ha... thanks, I thought there is something wrong with my eyes (sign of getting old, sigh..).

[clackers]

You should send them an invoice.

I reckon you should do this too, in future. Make up a number equal to buying a stock picture, $400 or whatever.


I was at a workshop run by the excellent sports and advertising photographer Lucas Wroe, who said IIRC he pays two different agencies for their algorithms to constantly monitor the web and publications for misuse of his images.


He said a lot of the time the offences are done by time-pressured, quite junior employees even inside very big and rich companies. It's easy to copy and paste instead of bothering to chase down the actual rights holder.


So the invoice need not be abusive, just very commercial, very matter-of-fact.


They may simply remove the material rather than pay ... that's to be expected, and you'd have to begin legal proceedings to do anything else about it, which in most cases will be impractical.

[Ian.morgan]

Yeah , they had already removed it within 2 hours of me mailing them, and replaced with a shutterstock image by the end of the day (Hopefully paid for!). The original does still appear in Facebook though, where it must be cached somehow.

They made me an offer for my inconvenience, but I'm tempted to reject it since they so clearly made no effort to seek my permission and it wouldn't have been hard at all , and they should really learn that lazy journalism is not on.

They got the image from a Google search which came up with the image on here, along with a clear footnote 'this image may be subject to copyright'.

[rrstuff]

Yeah , they had already removed it within 2 hours of me mailing them, and replaced with a shutterstock image by the end of the day (Hopefully paid for!). The original does still appear in Facebook though, where it must be cached somehow.

They made me an offer for my inconvenience, but I'm tempted to reject it since they so clearly made no effort to seek my permission and it wouldn't have been hard at all , and they should really learn that lazy journalism is not on.

They got the image from a Google search which came up with the image on here, along with a clear footnote 'this image may be subject to copyright'.

I think you should accept the offer, unless it's laughable, or for some reason the publication of your photos on their website affects your brand negatively. It seems like they actually did ok. I don't think I have ever seen someone react within 2 hrs.

[clackers]

.

They made me an offer for my inconvenience, but I'm tempted to reject it since they so clearly made no effort to seek my permission and it wouldn't have been hard at all , and they should really learn that lazy journalism is not on.

Just take it, Ian! 😀

A truckload of champagne for you, or just a thimble?

[interested_observer]

They made me an offer for my inconvenience, but I'm tempted to reject it since they so clearly made no effort to seek my permission and it wouldn't have been hard at all , and they should really learn that lazy journalism is not on.

The problem is, it was your image that they essentially stole. It is your rules, not theirs. Determine what the image is worth, triple it for their inappropriate actions, and tell them to pay or let the Judge decide. Keep a running diary if you do go to court, as I would think that a number of sites would like to run with your story. Ah and the negative publicity that they would receive....

[TaoMaas]

I would be interested to know where they got it though.
If it's Facebook, then that implies they could have used pictures of my family. If it was from here, then it implies the licensing settings on here aren't clear enough.

I think your case is an example of why it's a good idea for us to toss our best images into Google Image Search every so often and see what pops up. I've found several of my images on Pinterest pages and all of them were taken from here. In my case, nobody was making any money off my work. They were simply using my pics to illustrate a part of our state that they love, so..."no harm, no foul".

[BrianR]

Keep a running diary if you do go to court, as I would think that a number of sites would like to run with your story. Ah and the negative publicity that they would receive....

This seems likely to backfire and just end up giving publicity to the poke (the may not care if it's good or bad) and rouse legions of poke fans declaring he should be happy for the free publicity his image received (not my view, just my crystal balls).

This won't be the first image they've lifted from the web. Someone with time on their hands and a beef with the poke could probably have a fun weekend finding other cases on their website and piling up some documentation to send out to the big photo news websites or organize a mass of dmca take down notices aimed at the poke.

On a related note, I wonder if there have been any academic studies on % of images used without permission on websites like this? Or smaller ones.

[interested_observer]

This seems likely to backfire and just end up giving publicity to the poke (the may not care if it's good or bad) and rouse legions of poke fans declaring he should be happy for the free publicity his image received (not my view, just my crystal balls).

As P.T. Barnum use to say “I don't care what you say about me, just spell my name right”. There is always that danger. Also, the public generally cares little about copyrights in general - especially when ever Disney's copyrights (Micky Mouse) are about expire they ram another extension through congress.

This won't be the first image they've lifted from the web. Someone with time on their hands and a beef with the poke could probably have a fun weekend finding other cases on their website and piling up some documentation to send out to the big photo news websites or organize a mass of dmca take down notices aimed at the poke.

In my opinion, the US arrangement on Copyrights - especially concerning photos, is that the requirement to register in order to recover statutory damages and especially legal fees - along with the high cost of going to Federal Court (I have seen estimates that start at $30,000 in legal fees), essentially protects the infringer more than the copyright holder. If you fail to register, it is economically impossible for you to sue - and the infringer is off scott free.

Also, if you read the recent law changes - to be perfectly legal, in order to use the DMCA the image needs to be registered. Otherwise the infringer can just ignore the take down notice. Now that is usually not what happens - but I am just waiting for some infringer to push back hard on that - and make good use of some image not being registered.

What is nice about the OP being in the UK is their Copyright Small Claims Court where with a minimum of expense, some basic documentation and no lawyers (nor their added expense) you can recover a reasonable sum - 10,000 pounds.

On a related note, I wonder if there have been any academic studies on % of images used without permission on websites like this? Or smaller ones.

I would think that it would be somewhat of a guess at best. You really would not know for certain if the image had been licensed or permission granted - Creative Commons, etc.