Dealing with copyright violations

[Haavard Stoere]

This evening I found one of my pictures on an Internet page for an aquaristic shop in a European country. The picture is used to advertise a species of pleco they have in stock.

Previously I have found similar violations of copyright, but only from private hobbyists. When this occurs I send a firm but friendly mail to get them removed.No reason to overreact in such circumstances I think.

What is the best response when a business violates copyright? Should I just send them an an email and ask them to remove the picture or should I demand payment for them to use the picture? What is the best way to do this?

[MatsP]

If you think they will pay, then ask them for payment OR removal. If you do not think they actually will pay, then just firmly ask them to remove the image.

The next very obvious question is what the value of your picture is... Commercial photographers can charge a lot for a picture for advertising purposes. Should you compete with those at equal level [from a photographic standpoint, I think you are at least as good as some of the commercial aquatics photographers].

--
Mats

[Lloydy]

Which picture did they use? url?

Yes I'm a nosey sod

[Haavard Stoere]

For a 13 year old making his first homepage I don`t mind so much, but when it is a shop with a professional webmaster employed I think it is another matter. I don`t think they will pay because they have shamelessly stolen a lot of pictures from other amateur photographers. I don`t think I will pursue payment, but I will ask them to remove all copyrighted material including this one of Hemiancitrus guahiborum. They purposefully crop the pictures so that "Hosted by planetcatfish" do not show.

[jerry58]

Hi
Don't know if you know about this but seeing most of your pics are good quality do you think in future it might be worth watermarking them they say it is the safest way to protect pics on the net or email.There is free software to download if you can find it maybe worth a go .

Hope this helps in future Jerry

[drpleco]

Maybe this is a stupid question, but how does one go about copyrighting photos? Is it implied that photos not personally shot shouldn't be used, or is getting a copyright an extra step? I'm only familliar with copyrighting from an academid standpoint, but had previously assumed that imaged on the internet were free to use unless it said so specifically on or around the image.

Please don't read into this that I'm out there stealing images and posting them all over - I personally see this as in bad taste. I hadn't thought it illegal, however.

[MatsP]

Hi
Don't know if you know about this but seeing most of your pics are good quality do you think in future it might be worth watermarking them they say it is the safest way to protect pics on the net or email.There is free software to download if you can find it maybe worth a go .

Hope this helps in future Jerry

But that doesn't stop the picture from being used, only makes it possible/easier to PROVE that it is your picture (and that also assumes that the thieves aren't clever enough to do stuff that remove/hide the watermark).

--
Mats

[jerry58]

Hi
Might help explain

http://www.protectmywork.com/index_photo.php

Jerry

[jerry58]

Hi MatsP
I think its to make more difficult to use photo if watermarked as a lot of people will not bother trying to remove if watermarked as apposed to not watermarking if you see what i mean more of a deterrent.

Jerry

[MatsP]

That particular examnple talks about a visible watermark. That was already done by Jools on the photo in question, but it was cropped out. In the Cat-eLog it is a balance between marking the photo in such a way that it hides the subject but is clearly not possible to remove, and making it less intrusive but also easier to remove.

I was thinking of the invisible watermarks that can be added into JPEG images. That is much easier to remove, it only requires a resize of the image, but it's not visible, so if the thief isn't aware of what they are looking for, they don't know it's there and it's easy to prove the origin of the image (a bit like the anti-theft marking with UV-flourescent pen on valuable items).

--
Mats

[Haavard Stoere]

but had previously assumed that imaged on the internet were free to use unless it said so specifically on or around the image.

This is a normal assumption, and it is really not a big deal (in my view) unless you use images to sell something.
Getting copyright is no extra step. The copyright of all pictures belongs to the creater of the photograph, or even in some cases it belongs to the creator of the object photographed (bit more complicated). A photographer have copyrights of all his work unless copyright is sold regardless of watermarks or text around or on the picture. I don`t bother with watermarks as I have all the raw files for documantation.

[L number Banana]

I've always noted copyright info on the bottom of my webpages so at least the copier can't say that it wasn't clear that the images were not free.
I write : "Image and Design Copyright property of Tana Clarke 1999-2009" that at least covers both the art and the IMAGE of the art. People have still stolen a few but it's just been the product idea or the design and good luck proving that two people didn't come up with the same pretty common idea at the same time

Here's a handy thing for personal webpage pictures, don't know if it would be a waste of time for PC since we post Cat- elog pics into other PC posts?
This is a right-click blocker, it gets pasted into your source so if someone hits the right click to save or copy, it won't work. Not perfect and there's ways around it but at least if it was done by a commercial webmaster it would show they copied it intentionally, knowing that it wasn't meant to be there as a freebie.
http://www.java-scripts.net/javascripts ... lick.phtml

You could always use a very faint watermark across the picture so it doesn't ruin the subject? Photoshop could make it very faint but just enough to be a pain for the thieving webmaster.

[Bas Pels]

Maybe this is a stupid question, but how does one go about copyrighting photos? Is it implied that photos not personally shot shouldn't be used, or is getting a copyright an extra step? I'm only familliar with copyrighting from an academid standpoint, but had previously assumed that imaged on the internet were free to use unless it said so specifically on or around the image.

Please don't read into this that I'm out there stealing images and posting them all over - I personally see this as in bad taste. I hadn't thought it illegal, however.

As stated above, when you make a picture (or a painting, compose a song or write a book, for that matter) you have copyright on it

No further things are needed, such as a registration or so. However, if you would want to act in Court if needed, you should have evidence of your making - that is, a registry, or so, of any kind, might be helpful. But this would be to prouve the excistence of a copyright, not to create the copyright itself

However, some countries, such as the USA, require a warning in order to enable the copyright owner to claim damages. the example L Number Banana gave might be a good example. The European countries are among those where no warning, of any kind, is required - and all infringement - that is, use witout permission, can be acted against.

Now you all know a little about what I do for a living

[MatsP]

As stated above, when you make a picture (or a painting, compose a song or write a book, for that matter) you have copyright on it

Unless of course you for example work as a photographer for a newspaper (etc), and your contract says that "Whilst on working hours, any photos you take belong to the paper". Likewise, the code I write for a living at work do not belong to me...

But yes, anything written, photographed, sung or otherwise "created" is automatically under copyright of whoever created it - the only situation it is NOT, is when it is explicitly stated "You may copy/use this for your own purposes".

It is also legal to "quote" from copyrighted material without specific permission - of course, this should be limited amounts (and source given), you can't quote the entire works of James Joyce in your book and surround it with 'John read: "<entire Ulysses>" in two days.' - that is not quoting, that it copying/plagiarizing.

--
Mats

[Jools]

A lot of people just think that anything on the internet is public domain, but this is not the case. The point isn't to worry about where the image was stolen from (despite the terms of use statement at the bottom of every page) but to focus on where the image is being used.

I deal with 2-5 of these things monthly, often on eBay or similar sites, if you go searching for images of catfsih you do tend to end up on Planet! Normally you just state you are the owner of the photo and ask it be removed or, if a company is involved, ask for payment. If neither happens (including no reply), I then send another email asking if they do not remove the image within 14 days then I will report to abuse to their ISP (all ISPs must accept reports of abuse) and those providing hosting services to companies are especially receptive. Usually this then works.

If all this fails, you can suggest that having their site blacklisted - which means that any email sent from that domain will often get filtered out by pretty much anyones spam filters is not worth the illegal use of a picture.

Jools

As an aside, the chaps from Aqualog just sent me a polite email asking me to remove all pictures of african catfishes from their photo collection book - I pointed out that it says in the book they can be freely used on websites - this wasn't something they'd really figured out when the book was published.

[amiidae]

Apart fm your rights or actions that you may take..

To me, nothing is really "safe" once you post it on the internet. Pretty useless even if your site is right click disabled as a simple print screen would do the trick.

you best protection are ;

1) Post small file.
2) Watermark it.
3) or simply don't post

[MatsP]

To me, nothing is really "safe" once you post it on the internet. Pretty useless even if your site is right click disabled as a simple print screen would do the trick.

You do not even need that. If you know what you are doing, you can dig out the image from the browser cache on the local machine, or use other tools such as wget if you know the name of the image. If it's using java-script to actualy display the image itself it gets a bit more complicated, but it's almost impossible to prevent someone from copying an image that is available to a web-browser.

--
Mats

[drpleco]

Thanks for the clarification, everyone! Over here in the US, we get a lot of warnings about pictures on the internet and how they're "out there" once they're posted. This mostly pertains to teens posting lewd pictures, or sexting, however.

I guess another approach to all this is to appreciate when your picture is used by another entity. I'm with Haarvard and would be upset if someone was making a whole lot of money off my pictures, but otherwise I wouldn't get too bothered by it. That's just me, though, and I don't rely on photography for income. If I did, that would be a different story. I'm just in the hobby to blow off steam, so life is too short for me to pursue copyright infringements and whatnot. Now when PC pictures show up on ebay, that's a whole different ballgame.

Shortly, my dissertation will get published somewhere on the internet and I won't be at all bothered if pieces are used here and there. That's sort of the point, I suppose, of putting it out there - so that others can build upon it or tear it down and propose something different. But I seperated my ego from it a long time ago and decided it was just another part of the vast literature that's out there to be used. There are also appendices I took from the internet (questionnaires I used) that are posted as "free use" and I was very appreciative of that. And yes, I understand that plagerism and legitimate citations are different animals, but I'm still happy is anyone is reading my work.

Anyway, I guess my point is that I feel there's a very fine and hazy line between protecting valuable property and sharing with the greater community, but I personally tend to swing the way of the latter. That's just my view, anyway.

[MatsP]

I agree that if you have something to share, you should. But it's one thing giving the picture of your fish to Jools to be used on Planet Catfish, and another thing finding that the picture has been downloaded, cropped to remove the Planet Catfish markings, and is being used to promote a fish for sale!

I would have no problem with someone using my photos for commercial purposes IF they ask me. However, if I find out that my photo has been used for commercial purposes without my knowledge, I'd not be particularly happy. Case in point: there are (or were) 20 x 30" posters of the below shot and some of the other photos I took at that event at Alf's Motorcycles in Worthing. Used with my permission!


--
Mats

[apistomaster]

A fly by night operator used this photo of one of my old Manacapuru Blue Discus on aquabid to represent his fish.

I wrote to this person and aquabid to stop using my photo immediately but neither entity took any action.

I only learned of it's use from others familiar with my Discus. In this case not only did they not have my permission but the fish had been dead for over a year! I did felt violated but apparently there wasn't much I could do without taking legal action.
Pretty nice looking wild Blue Discus, eh?

[MatsP]

Larry, did you figure out who the ISP behind Aquabid is?

[And yes, it's a pretty fish indeed].

--
Mats

[apistomaster]

No I did not find out the ISP and the ad only ran 2 weeks.
Others closer to the seller in Florida reported that he had just shipped some in and was keeping them in kiddy wading pools. I figure he was not going to gain much out of it but i was peeved over the incident.

[L number Banana]

amiidae wrote:To me, nothing is really "safe" once you post it on the internet. Pretty useless even if your site is right click disabled as a simple print screen would do the trick.

The right-click blocker is often used to add that extra step to show that the copier had to make an effort to get around it. Many artists use the words, " You may not copy this image." OF course you can get around it but at least the warning is obvious, so no one can claim ignorance.

We also have the new "creative commons copyright", this is where you write cc to show that you may use it but cite the source. There's many different options with this. It's a fabulous idea!
http://creativecommons.org/about/what-is-cc

ps. Nice picture Mats!

[Taratron]

Ugh, copyright.

I work at a copy store, and it never fails to amaze me how downright belligerent people get when I mention copyright as a reason to refuse to make copies. No, I can't make two dozen wallet sized photos of your kid's school photo. No, I can't copy that Disney poster. No, I can't copy cartoon designs all over your business cards; Disney tends to frown on that. People seem to be under the assumption that if they, say, buy a book, then they own it and everything that that entails. They should, in their mind, be able to have a hundred copies run of the book, no questions asked.

The best are the people that claim their studio portraits are too old to be copywritten. Or the photographer is dead. Every time I have to explain that legally, I can not and will not make the copy for them (I can lose my job if I do), they cry out about shoddy customer service and that everyone else does it, why won't I? Yet so few of them will sign the waiver we offer, that states the customer has permission to make copies, because somewhere in the legalities it absolves us of responsibility, and throws any lawsuit at them. Amazing.

[L number Banana]

Taratron wrote:

I work at a copy store, and it never fails to amaze me how downright belligerent people get when I mention copyright as a reason to refuse to make copies.

Here's a funny one. I went to get copies made of one of my articles in a magazine and had to show the manager my ID and the magazine invoice to confirm that it was truly me that wrote it. I told them how grateful I was that they took the time to make sure. I would be secretly thrilled if someone wanted to copy it but then again, I'm not a famous author!

Good on you for being careful

[sidguppy]

I'm curious how it ended up for Haavard
Haavard, got any news on the issue so far?

I've been in exactly the same position, wich is surprising; because my skills with acamera range from mediocre to pretty bad.
still I took tons of pix; mostly cichlids and catfish and posted them on forums, in articles, some even here for the catelog.

and so eventually there were a couple of shops (at least 1 Dutch and 1 Czech) that took it upon themselves to steal not just my pictures for their stocklist, but loads of pictures from a few other people as well; mostly from guys at the Dutch cichlid-forums.

we started politely with the request to remove those pictures.
you wouldn't believe how belligerent the Dutch guy reacted.
HE had done the criminal act, but going by his reaction it was like we had kidnapped his children to sell em into slavery.
typical.

since civil behaviour went out the window right there and then by his own making; I treathened with chrome-plated attack lawyers descending in helicopter gunships, the wrath of God, homegrown terrorism, holy war, the theft of all his horses and all his men, hacking of not just his website but the entire host and server; you know the drill.
sugar on top, pretty please

those pictures were removed pretty quickly I tell ye

the picture theft of the Czech business was shortly after that and since I was still quite vexed at the complete absence of anything remotely resembling ethics or morality with those thieves I just stayed in Djengis Kahn mode and gave them the news that Czechia would be invaded pretty shorty and put to the torch if those pictures weren't removed.

problem solved

[Jools]

... and if you're not feeling quite so vociferous, a complaint to the local web host or police has always worked for me (and I do several of these a year).

Jools

[sidguppy]

hehe
that's an option as well

but that's because you're a civilized guy.

I'm only civilized to those who're worthy of it.

[Firestorming]

What do we do if we find another site that appears to be using PC images with the watermarks cropped out?

Just curious as I have been staring at the Peckoltia pics in the E-log and have found that some pics from there are being used on other commercial sites, is it a PC "fight" or should I inform Amazon Exotic Imports and Rayon Vert Aqua website?

If one of the senior forum guys wants me to post the link up I will or pm the link to them.

I just found some of the other pics have been lifted from ScotCat from Jonas Hansel at Piranha-info.com

[MatsP]

I would start by sending the owner of the website a little message saying "what are you doing using these images (list of URL's) that clearly are copied from X, Y and Z. These images are protected under copyright law." - use e-mail, and send it to whoever runs the site. Copy Jools and Allan James (Scotcat) and Jonas.

If that doesn't work, you'll need to inform the ISP that provides the internet connection and report the abuse there.

--
Mats