[TOUGEFC]

The posts above pretty much sum it all up, though I can add a few thoughts:

• Don't post anything to the Internet that you don't want to give away
• People don't have to "grab" your photo...it is downloaded to their computer as part of the page load and once they have it, they have it. Simply put.
• Protect yourself by using embedded copyright information in the image EXIF data. Due diligence is incredibly important in copyright matters.
• Use a visible watermark to be even more diligent
• Don't post large images to the Web, even on Flickr. The smaller the image, the less likely it is to be re-purposed by content thieves.

Steve

Good post right here.

[George Lama]

Most people don't understand the concept of fair use and think it applies to whatever they feel like. Fair use is actually fairly narrowly defined by law and many people's so-called fair use is downright illegal.

If you feel strongly about the usage of your image, contact the hosting provider and provide necessary information. Chances are they will issue a take-down notice or remove it themselves.

If folks in the forum are using the photo to harass or misrepresent you, you might have good cause.If it's someone else's photo, particularly of a minor, there are other legal issues which will make it more likely that it will be taken down.

Other suggestions posted above are equally valid - including watermarking your images and keeping sizes and quality down.

Just don't make this a spit into the wind situation - keep it in perspective. It might just not be worth to go through the hassle or make enemies.

[GregK8]

I've had a bunch of my images re-posted on DijitalFokus with no credit, I dont really mind, and they are actually linking directly from my server so i can put a watermark on them if i want.

In that case, you can change the image to add the text "this image is being posted here without the consent of the copyright holder"

[newarts]

Claiming or implying someone else's image is mine is clearly unethical and may also be a violation of copyright law.

But I cannot see how my giving someone a url to a third party's image is a violation of copyright. If I claim the linked image is mine, I'm committing fraud but if you are publishing an image on the internet, how can you claim you don't want people to look at it?

Here is a photo of the Whitehouse created by a third party:


The above photo was not embedded in this text; I just put a link to the url inline: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/WhiteHouseSouthFacade.JPG and I've also identified the image's source.

It is important to give credit to the original author or to the source of the image so I don't commit the fraud of claiming or implying the image is mine.

Even if this image were subject to copyright what have I done wrong?

---

Last edited by newarts; 04-17-2011 at 07:40 AM.

[Lowell Goudge]

I have only once had images "stolen" and requested they be taken down. The in my case the person involved had copied my shots from here, reported them as his on flicker and then reported them here as his

When I contacted him he took them down

[TaoMaas]

I want to be the one who decides who gets to distribute my images.

You did decide. You posted it online, then someone took it from there. I don't really understand your gripe here. The person who posted your pic credited you as the originator, so what's your beef? Unless the person who used your pic is profiting somehow from it, I don't think you have a complaint. It's kinda like saying something witty, then having someone repeat what you said and giving you credit for coming up with the saying. If you think you've been wronged...prove your damages. It's that simple.

[alohadave]

You did decide. You posted it online, then someone took it from there. I don't really understand your gripe here. The person who posted your pic credited you as the originator, so what's your beef? Unless the person who used your pic is profiting somehow from it, I don't think you have a complaint. It's kinda like saying something witty, then having someone repeat what you said and giving you credit for coming up with the saying. If you think you've been wronged...prove your damages. It's that simple.

He doesn't have to prove damages to get it removed. DMCA takedowns don't require any damages to be enforced. It is a mechanism to enforce your copyrights online.

[Student]

But what the guy did was basically download the image and then when I deleted it from my server he uploaded it to HIS own. To then post it on a forum. That's theft to me.

[dragonfly]

I learned to start watermarking all of my images and videos. I have a youTube channel of little importance with hundreds of videos that are interesting to me. One day I noticed that one of my videos had been reproduced as a marketing tool by some spammer.

He responded to my PM by removing my video, but he still had dozens that were stolen from other people.

What are you going to do?

[Lowell Goudge]

But what the guy did was basically download the image and then when I deleted it from my server he uploaded it to HIS own. To then post it on a forum. That's theft to me.

I guess what is difficult to understand is what is the problem with the image that caused you to take it down in the first place and how is the other person using it in the second. If you can explain this better perhaps we all will understand the issue better. As others have said by posting the image you made it available to the public to view. What changed your mind?

[newarts]

I guess what is difficult to understand is what is the problem with the image that caused you to take it down in the first place and how is the other person using it in the second. If you can explain this better perhaps we all will understand the issue better. As others have said by posting the image you made it available to the public to view. What changed your mind?

I agree.

Student, Would you please post a link to the offending page? I'd like to see how the offender is using your photo.

[TaoMaas]

He doesn't have to prove damages to get it removed. DMCA takedowns don't require any damages to be enforced. It is a mechanism to enforce your copyrights online.

That may be true, but whether or not the OP has a gripe really depends upon how the image is being used. If we're discussing great landscape photography on this board and someone posts an Ansel Adams pic as an example of how effective B&W photography can be, permission is not needed from Adams' estate for that usage.

[TOUGEFC]

Student you dont have a leg to stand on, your not the copyright holder, George W Bush is

[rawr]

Very relevant to this thread:
How to Protect Online Photos

[interested_observer]

Carolyn Wright is an attorney who specializes in Copyright and Photography law. She maintains a blog that provides a vast array of information on the topics. She is not giving legal advice, however, its probably the next best thing. I suggest visiting the site.....

• Photo Attorney

.... also, here is her view on "fair use"....

• The Fuss About Fair Use | Photo Attorney