Online Image Theft

[Wolfeye]

Not sure how many of you browse photo.net but there's a new thread today which you might want to take a peek at:

http://photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00W132

Apparently there's been a very large and blatant theft of wedding photography images by some schmuck in California.

[ic-racer]

Well I left my car in the driveway with the door open and the keys in it last week before I went on vacation. Now the car is gone.

Similarly, it may be illegal to re-use those images (I don't know), but if you post you coveted pictures on the internet, its impossible for anyone to see them without downloading them to thier own computer. Where they go from there...who knows ;)

[JBrunner]

Well I left my car in the driveway with the door open and the keys in it last week before I went on vacation. Now the car is gone.

Similarly, it may be illegal to re-use those images (I don't know), but if you post you coveted pictures on the internet, its impossible for anyone to see them without downloading them to thier own computer. Where they go from there...who knows ;)

Not at all. It is clear copyright infringement, and if proven substantially, clearly blatantly both illegal, and a civil tort case as well. Wedding photographers must use the net for advertising, there really isn't any other option, and the analogy to leaving the keys in the car isn't a very good one. It attempts to shift the blame from the criminal perpetrator to the victim. That's B.S. One should be free to advertise with images when one is in the image making business without fear of being censured when one is robbed by a criminal.

[SilverGlow]

There are ways of preventing theft from one's web site of pictures one displays there, although not 100% effective...the site can disable the ability to rip jpgs to the local PC, or water mark the image, or hide the images's addresses, or embed searchable information via GOOGLE, so finding stolen images can be easy...this idea doesn't prevent ripping but can make it relatively easy to find stolen property.

Posting images on Photo dot net is like leaving your car door open and the keys in it....I think the car analogy is not BS...it is very accurate in fact....

The guy that did the theft is a piece of sheet and deserves to be destroyed by the plaintiff's lawyers!

[nick mulder]

wow,

the graphic behind his name at his site looks like a technicolor asshole :D

http://www.seanpeelephotography.com/v1site_images/splash_logo.jpg?var=0.69209600%201268860623

[Rudeofus]

Since this is APUG, I for a second assumed someone was burglarized and his prints stolen ... :p

As far as the methods descibed above are concerned: these prevent only the most blatant and trivial forms of copyright infringement. You can easily remove embedded info by format converting the image, you can not really prevent anyone from getting the image data as long as you display the image in your browser (browser cache anyone?), hidden image links won't save you either (view page source anyone?). Water marks are either so obstrusive that they spoil the image or so harmless that they can be removed with little image processing or just cropping.

For further prove just take a look at the music and film industry: they have tried all kinds of schemes for copy protection, all of them have failed miserably despite the substantial amounts of money wasted on them, despite massive corporate lobbying, and despite the considerable discomfort (including root kits) caused by them to honest buyers of these goods. If for some reason one finds it necessary to publish his/her shots on the WWW, one must basically accept they are free for grabs. Try to enforce your copyright claims across country borders, especially in certain (very large) regions of this world, if you want to see what I mean.

[JBrunner]

There are ways of preventing theft from one's web site of pictures one displays there, although not 100% effective...the site can disable the ability to rip jpgs to the local PC, or water mark the image, or hide the images's addresses, or embed searchable information via GOOGLE, so finding stolen images can be easy...this idea doesn't prevent ripping but can make it relatively easy to find stolen property.

Posting images on Photo dot net is like leaving your car door open and the keys in it....I think the car analogy is not BS...it is very accurate in fact....

The guy that did the theft is a piece of sheet and deserves to be destroyed by the plaintiff's lawyers!

Because a crime is convenient, it doesn't make it less criminal. It is wrong to blame the victim. Files can be and are stolen off of all kinds of websites, regardless of the paper thin schemes used to protect them. The thieves usually aren't stupid enough to use them in public for a commercial purpose.

How bout that girl in the short skirt? She was just beggin for it! Get real.

[Photo Engineer]

Has anyone considered an alternative approach?

He has stolen photos but now is representing them as his own. This is misrepresentation of a fact and can be proven in court. This can then reduce to that one misrepresentation and can spin of into several other legal arguments that can get him in a lot of trouble.

PE

[Worker 11811]

If for some reason one finds it necessary to publish his/her shots on the WWW, one must basically accept they are free for grabs.

"WWW" essentially equates to "Wild Wild West." That's pretty much what the internet is. The Wild West. Almost anybody can do just about anything and there isn't much you can do to stop them.

If it can be displayed on my computer I can copy it. PERIOD.
Regardless of watermarks or copy protection schemes, I can copy virtually anything I want. There are some schemes which will slow me down but I have yet to be stopped. This isn't a boast or a dare. It's just a fact of life on the internet.

If you post something on the internet, you are essentially throwing it to the four winds.

That having been said, there are things you can do.

First, don't post high resolution versions where people can get to them.
If you have a subscription or a membership service, put your high resolution pictures behind a pay wall. Make the membership agreement include language to the effect that the user is not allowed to copy the images except for his own, personal in-home use. If the user plagiarizes your work you now have a hook with which you can haul him into court with. Plus, you can ban him from your site.

Second, learn the practice of Juitsu.
In real lift Jujitsu is a style of martial arts where one forces his opponent to use his own momentum momentum against himself. If somebody tries to throw a punch at you, step aside, grab him by the arm and push him down to the ground. He will fall under his own weight and you simply have to "sit" on him. You can learn to do the same thing on the internet.

Take a look at some internet sites that post pictures of their V.I.P. events. Notice how they are virtually ALL taken in front of some kind of banner with the event's logo on it. How many pictures of stars taken on the red carpet have some kind of sign, poster or logo "casually" located in the background?
That's jujitsu! Any time somebody copies one of those photos, they are unwittingly advertising the original website from which they swiped the picture.

You can do some very subtle things. For instance, every Playboy cover photo since I can always remember has had the Playboy "bunny" logo hidden somewhere in the image. It can also be a trademark style or theme. I once remember a photographer whose trademark was a red umbrella. Almost every image I saw had a red umbrella in the picture. Gosh, it's been so long I don't remember his name but I do remember seeing one of his pictures and thinking, "There's the 'red umbrella' guy!"

Watermarking or Digimarc-ing is probably a good idea if you post a lot of pictures on the net. Yes, they can be removed but it's another obstacle that people have to overcome.

Essentially, there is no stopping anybody from copying from the internet but you can do things to slow them down but the best thing is to make every image lead the viewer back to YOUR website.

That way you can say, "Go ahead and copy my pictures! It's just free advertising for me!"

[JBrunner]

"WWW" essentially equates to "Wild Wild West." That's pretty much what the internet is. The Wild West. Almost anybody can do just about anything and there isn't much you can do to stop them.

If it can be displayed on my computer I can copy it. PERIOD.
Regardless of watermarks or copy protection schemes, I can copy virtually anything I want. There are some schemes which will slow me down but I have yet to be stopped. This isn't a boast or a dare. It's just a fact of life on the internet.

If you post something on the internet, you are essentially throwing it to the four winds.

That having been said, there are things you can do.

First, don't post high resolution versions where people can get to them.
If you have a subscription or a membership service, put your high resolution pictures behind a pay wall. Make the membership agreement include language to the effect that the user is not allowed to copy the images except for his own, personal in-home use. If the user plagiarizes your work you now have a hook with which you can haul him into court with. Plus, you can ban him from your site.

Second, learn the practice of Juitsu.
In real lift Jujitsu is a style of martial arts where one forces his opponent to use his own momentum momentum against himself. If somebody tries to throw a punch at you, step aside, grab him by the arm and push him down to the ground. He will fall under his own weight and you simply have to "sit" on him. You can learn to do the same thing on the internet.

Take a look at some internet sites that post pictures of their V.I.P. events. Notice how they are virtually ALL taken in front of some kind of banner with the event's logo on it. How many pictures of stars taken on the red carpet have some kind of sign, poster or logo "casually" located in the background?
That's jujitsu! Any time somebody copies one of those photos, they are unwittingly advertising the original website from which they swiped the picture.

You can do some very subtle things. For instance, every Playboy cover photo since I can always remember has had the Playboy "bunny" logo hidden somewhere in the image. It can also be a trademark style or theme. I once remember a photographer whose trademark was a red umbrella. Almost every image I saw had a red umbrella in the picture. Gosh, it's been so long I don't remember his name but I do remember seeing one of his pictures and thinking, "There's the 'red umbrella' guy!"

Watermarking or Digimarc-ing is probably a good idea if you post a lot of pictures on the net. Yes, they can be removed but it's another obstacle that people have to overcome.

Essentially, there is no stopping anybody from copying from the internet but you can do things to slow them down but the best thing is to make every image lead the viewer back to YOUR website.

That way you can say, "Go ahead and copy my pictures! It's just free advertising for me!"

All of that applies, and of course casual appropriation is something that you must be prepared to live with, or take advantage of, as you suggest. I know I am and do. The case in point is however far more onerous. Here we have an individual who is alleged to have stolen others (many others it appears) work, and represented it as his own as an example of his work.

[lxdude]

Amazingly brazen. The guy's stealing from photo.net and he's a member. What gall.
How could he think he wouldn't be found out?

[jnanian]

register images with the copyright office,
gang registration is not expensive, and it is easy.
once they are registered if anyone takes and uses them and
publishes them without consent the owner of the copyright
has a legal leg to stand on. it is very hard to prove anything
in a court of law without copyright registration.

[Worker 11811]

The case in point is however far more onerous. Here we have an individual who is alleged to have stolen others (many others it appears) work, and represented it as his own as an example of his work.

Yes, I agree with you.

What in the world possesses this guy to make him think that he can advertise his services using somebody else's work as examples? That seems like a clear case of false advertising to me. Isn't it?

[Sparky]

I don't see what the big deal is... i mean - the guy's going to get his just desserts anyway when the 'client' realizes his work isn't like what he's purporting it to be anyway... but I guess I'm kind of on the side of images being public domain anyhow. As for any issue of burden of proof for copyright - well - isn't it great we all shoot film...?? I mean shouldn't the owner of the physical film be awarded copyright under such a dispute?

[Worker 11811]

He puts himself out to be a wedding photographer. There is often only one chance to get the shots needed to document the event with style, emotion and technical excellence. A wedding is an event that can never be repeated. Somebody who advertises himself as a wedding photographer is saying, "Trust me with your memories." That's a fairly high stakes game.

Somebody who advertises his services using images he did not take is essentially lying to the customer. He is giving people the impression that he has the ability to capture images at their wedding which will be similar to the ones seen on the website. However, his ability may not be up to par with the photographers who actually took them.

(One caveat would be if he subcontracted to the photographers who did take the pictures. But that doesn't seem to be the case here.)

Furthermore, photographing a wedding is not just about getting the shot. It's about getting the photos that people expect... The bride, the groom, the minister, the wedding party, the parents of the bride and groom.... etc... etc... etc. There are also things like record keeping necessary to get all the names straight. Then there is just "professional behavior" that is expected of a stranger who attends somebody else's wedding as an employee. There are a hundred facets to doing a wedding shoot and doing it well. I'm only giving simplified examples.

So, here's this schmoe who claims to be a wedding photographer but who uses false advertising to get business. If he lied about the pictures he (supposedly) took, is it a stretch of the imagination to think that he lies about his ability to complete the job in a professional manner? Somebody is likely to get burned.

I generally believe in "Caveat Emptor" but this guy could also damage the reputation of other professional photographers who are up to the task. If a few people get burned by this guy, more potential clients are likely to be skeptical of all photographers. Basically, I am talking about professionals policing their own ranks.

[John R.]

register images with the copyright office,
gang registration is not expensive, and it is easy.
once they are registered if anyone takes and uses them and
publishes them without consent the owner of the copyright
has a legal leg to stand on. it is very hard to prove anything
in a court of law without copyright registration.

Absolutely correct! When a photographer places his images into a public domain like the web they should know full well they better have them registered with the US Copyright Office. If a photographer does not take that essential step then in my opinion they are only a victim of their own laziness or stupidity. I am not saying a photog deserves to be ripped off or am I defending any thief. What I am pointing out is that as a photographer a person should know better than to post images online without providing for sound legal recourse. Simply creating an image and then accusing someone of image theft because you are granted copyright protection the minute you produced it is woefully inadequate protection. You have to *prove* it is indeed your image and that you hold copyright of it and you were infringed upon. The burden is then placed on you to prove infringement in litigation. How are you going to do that without proper registration? A original film negative or slide would be persuasive, a digital file NOT. Photographers should register web content or don't scream when your images are stolen and you discover you have no affordable recourse. Forget protecting images online, that isn't going to happen. If someone wants it they are going to be able to get it. All you can do is create a few roadblocks and hope they take a image that's easier to snatch. Like a car, if they want it they will get it, alarms or not.

[bob100684]

DCMA letter to the website's hosting company. Though recently I found a shot here http://danilorreis.blogspot.com/2009/07/aquario.html and google claimed it saw no resemblance to my shot here: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8345298 .

[lxdude]

DCMA letter to the website's hosting company. Though recently I found a shot here http://danilorreis.blogspot.com/2009/07/aquario.html and google claimed it saw no resemblance to my shot here: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=8345298 .

And the credit on the blog didn't even clue them in? WOW.

[Q.G.]

register images with the copyright office,
gang registration is not expensive, and it is easy.
once they are registered if anyone takes and uses them and
publishes them without consent the owner of the copyright
has a legal leg to stand on. it is very hard to prove anything
in a court of law without copyright registration.

I disagree. All you need to do is show that you are the maker of the image. Not difficult, when you are.

The "copyright register" is just one step on the road that ends in divorcing the photographer from the copyright he holds. You do not need to register to own the copyright. It's a right given at birth.
So all such a register does is provide a way to say "too bad, you sad person" when it is used in or out of court to steal copyrighted work.

Works are not orphaned, free from copyright, when you do not pay a bunch of people who have no role to play in the entire copyright and entitlement issue for putting them on a list they run.

[Rudeofus]

To make Q.G.s statement more precise:

- If you don't register copy right, you still own the copy right as creator of some creative work. You can sue people violating your copyright in court and will be compensated for the work. If your work is deemed worth 100$, that's what you can sue for.

- If you do, however, register your work with the copyright office, you can also sue for damages beyond the worth of your work.


So registering your work doesn't give you many extra rights, just additional sue dollars.