Getting ripped off daily - Should I care?

davidweaver

Really. this is an honest question. I shoot a lot and publish somewhere between 10k to 15k images a year, most of them in the Austin American-Statesman entertainment website, Austin360.com. Which, BTW, won the Edgie Awards 2008 for the "Best Entertainment Website" this year.

When I see my pics used by a local organization, nightclub, theater, or artist website I ask them for a credit. I ask nicely, I know many of personally, and they generally get around to adding a credit. As we do scratch each others' backs for events I don't make an issue of the use of photos by these folks on their websites. It gets me a CD cover every now and then, some additional paid gigs and good other word of mouth advertising for my other work.

I've been seeing and been told about my shots showing up on MySpace and Facebook. In order for folks to get these images they, generally, have to take a screen shot off the entertainment site, then edit/crop it. So the infringement is both of me and of the Statesman.

I don't really see that I can do much about this and I wonder if I really should care. I can't watermark the images as the paper wants them w/o marks and they also sell prints of the pics.

I'm not giving up any rights by letting infringement go unnoticed. The infringements are notorious on personal sites. I don't agree with the use of my image of them and their friends in a shot on their site, I can understand that they like a quality shot on their own site.

I don't worry about this as the cost-benefit from any enforcement isn't worth it.

Spending more time on larger customers and getting more paid gigs is a much better uise of my time.

Thoughts?

Blaker

davidweaver wrote:

As we do scratch each others' backs for events I don't make an issue of the use of photos by these folks on their websites. It gets me a CD cover every now and then, some additional paid gigs and good other word of mouth advertising for my other work.

I've been seeing and been told about my shots showing up on MySpace and Facebook.
I don't really see that I can do much about this and I wonder if I really should care.
I'm not giving up any rights by letting infringement go unnoticed. The infringements are notorious on personal sites. I don't agree with the use of my image of them and their friends in a shot on their site, I can understand that they like a quality shot on their own site.

I don't worry about this as the cost-benefit from any enforcement isn't worth it.

Spending more time on larger customers and getting more paid gigs is a much better uise of my time.

Thoughts?

You ask, " should I care?"
Only you can answer that, and
it sounds to me like you've already answered your own question- you say this system is working for you, and you're not worried about the infringements because it's more cost effective for you to seek out paying customers than to hunt down the infringers of your gratis photos.
If this is working for you, then I don't see what the problem is?

mercphoto

Blaker wrote:

You ask, " should I care?"
Only you can answer that, and
it sounds to me like you've already answered your own question- you say this system is working for you, and you're not worried about the infringements because it's more cost effective for you to seek out paying customers than to hunt down the infringers of your gratis photos.
If this is working for you, then I don't see what the problem is?

The problem is that it *is* breaking the law. The other problem is it just simply appears rampant in society these days. Know how much copyrighted material is up on YouTube??? Watermarking is one way to help with this but it has its own set of problems.

If there is no reasonable way to fight this, is there any reasonable way to profit/gain from it?

Blaker

mercphoto wrote:

The problem is that it *is* breaking the law. The other problem is it just simply appears rampant in society these days. Know how much copyrighted material is up on YouTube??? Watermarking is one way to help with this but it has its own set of problems.

If there is no reasonable way to fight this, is there any reasonable way to profit/gain from it?

It's not breaking the law if he agrees to it, which he does, as he said in his post , "As we do scratch each others' backs for events I don't make an issue of the use of photos by these folks on their websites".
Seems like it's a quid pro quo in his case.

If he wanted to enforce his copyright, he could. BUt that's not what he asked. He asked "Should I care?"
Only he can answer that for himself, and in his own words, it looks like he doesn't really care, because in his mind he is getting something of value from it.

mercphoto

Blaker wrote:

It's not breaking the law if he agrees to it, which he does, as he said in his post , "As we do scratch each others' backs for events I don't make an issue of the use of photos by these folks on their websites".
Seems like it's a quid pro quo in his case.

That makes sense.

Kalrog

Is everyone in this thread from Austin?

I would care... but I don't know that I would care enough negatively to pursue it. Really the only thing you have is legal action and I agree that for the personal / non-commercial aspects of it (facebook, etc.) you just ain't going to get blood from a turnip. On the commercial side, you might think about a small license fee (as in $1) just to enforce the personal property aspect of it, but it sounds like the advertising is worth more than the immediate fees. Penny wise and pound foolish comes to mind.

JohnBiggs

In the office I work in I see people stealing images all the time. They need to make a bowling flyer so they go to google, find a bowling image and put it in the flyer. There is no respect to the rights on the image and they don't think twice. It's considered fairly normal.

I would not have even noticed enough to care until I started getting serious into photography to know the time and money I spend to capture my images.

I guess this is the norm everywhere.

Snowgirl

JohnBiggs wrote:

In the office I work in I see people stealing images all the time. They need to make a bowling flyer so they go to google, find a bowling image and put it in the flyer. There is no respect to the rights on the image and they don't think twice. It's considered fairly normal.

I would not have even noticed enough to care until I started getting serious into photography to know the time and money I spend to capture my images.

I guess this is the norm everywhere.

Just because it's the norm doesn't make it right. Like everything else in life, if no one speaks up, the abuse of rights continues.

I make 50% of my living as a freelance writer and probably spend a disproportionate amount of time salvaging my rights to my words as they appear on various commercial websites (without credit or compensation).

Should he care? Should ANYONE care? Dam* straight!

As creators these are our products. Would you condone theft from a store just because 'it's the norm'? i think not. This is even more personal - theft of one's art and creativity!

Sorry - I tend to rant about these things.

JohnBiggs

Snowgirl wrote:

Just because it's the norm doesn't make it right. Like everything else in life, if no one speaks up, the abuse of rights continues.

I make 50% of my living as a freelance writer and probably spend a disproportionate amount of time salvaging my rights to my words as they appear on various commercial websites (without credit or compensation).

Should he care? Should ANYONE care? Dam* straight!

As creators these are our products. Would you condone theft from a store just because 'it's the norm'? i think not. This is even more personal - theft of one's art and creativity!

Sorry - I tend to rant about these things.

Ohh, don't get me wrong. I don't agree with the use of those photos. But I think this is the norm for most people making a quick office flier.

kenyahudson

If you see your work on Facebook, you can send them an e-mail note with the username and usually a link to the newspaper site, and they will remove it. If there are enough incidents, they warn the user. The user is required to stipulate that they own the rights to any images posted in their photo galleries. I used to get really upset about images (mostly sports) ending up on facebook, myspace, etc., but as mentioned before there's basically no money to be had and the persons taking the images are typically not trying to print or repurpose them. I still get upset if I see my work in print without being licensed though.

Howard Barlow

Two things to consider. Register every image you make with the US Copyright Office. Plus, if you establish, by practice, that you do not try to protect your copyright, you will, most likely, not be able to defend 'the one' you really wanted to protect, should it be copied.

Copyright is much like trademarks, protect them, or you are setting a 'shoot yourself in the foot' precedent.

I'm not a lawyer, nor is this intended as legal advice, but it is good advice. Ask an intellectual property lawyer.

kdog

Howard Barlow wrote:

Two things to consider. Register every image you make with the US Copyright Office.

Do people actually do this? Do you?

Travis

kdog wrote:

Do people actually do this? Do you?

2 months ago, PhotoShop User magazine began dedicating 2 sections of the magazine each month to copyrighting and protecting the copyright. i don't about others, but it has been relatively eye-opening to me. The main take-away I was shocked to learn is the cute little copyright symbol we all religiously place on our images doesn't mean diddly in court unless the photo is registered. I've been lazy but I plan on registering my work going forward to be safe.

Back to the OPs original question... I had an experience a few months ago with myspace usage of my photos. I'm not going to reprint the whole story but you read it in my blog if you are interested. I agree with the assessment that there are opportunities to leverage more business in these situations without alienating potential clients. If it was a mag/advertiser/etc worth serious money for the image, legal action would be in order; however, as far as personal use pilfering, I'd rather turn it into an opportunity for gain. Just my $.02....

Howard Barlow

kdog wrote:

Do people actually do this? Do you?

If it is published to the public, yes.

Blaker

Travis wrote:

I agree with the assessment that there are opportunities to leverage more business in these situations without alienating potential clients. If it was a mag/advertiser/etc worth serious money for the image, legal action would be in order; however, as far as personal use pilfering, I'd rather turn it into an opportunity for gain. Just my $.02....

I agree with you, everyone has to determine where they draw the line between losing sales to pilferers and gaining customers from increased exposure.
Travis, I read your blog entry, and I'm just curious, did your myspace exposure bring you any additional sales?

Travis

Blaker wrote:

I agree with you, everyone has to determine where they draw the line between losing sales to pilferers and gaining customers from increased exposure.
Travis, I read your blog entry, and I'm just curious, did your myspace exposure bring you any additional sales?

Yes. Though nothing to retire from, I did pick up around $100 in photos ordered from my surfing galleries from people that saw the site reference on the myspace pages. It is money that I never would have have realized without it.

divamum

I am a performer. Getting images of my own performances is very important for me, not only for my personal archive, but also to use on my website and in my own promotional materials.

I ALWAYS ask if I can download images of myself I see on the web IF I can actually track down the photographer (which is often more difficult than it sounds, since larger publications/organisations don't always give a public credit or by-line, and even when I've tried to follow the chain I have sometimes been unsuccessful in finding a name to credit).

HOWEVER.... one thing I will say is that on some occasions when I've been able to contact somebody and ask for the rights to use images on my website, I've had to ultimately politely decline since their fee was, to be honest, entirely unreasonable for personal use (ie, serious $ for permission to use an electronic copy of a previously published image which I would put on my website - no further printing or processing involved). I understand that for a larger organisation, or for an important personal event eg a wedding these are the kinds of fees (and higher) charged for single images, but when you're way down the chain from the original "purchaser" (thus a fee has already been paid) and often don't have those kinds of funds, it starts to become impossible. I simply put up with that if I have to, although it's often disappointing not to be able to use those images of myself. I hasten to add that I'm willing to pay a reasonable charge, but not the very high usage fees I've sometimes been quoted.

I'm happy to say, however, that has NOT been the norm, and most of the time people have been more than reasonable, in many cases demanding no more than a clear credit.

Thequestions you raise are good ones, OP, and I DO appreciate how it must feel like being plagiarised to see your own images pop up uncredited (hence why I personally don't use uncredited images unless I simply CAN'T get hold of anybody), but I did want to express things from the other side of the equation, too. I'm not sure what the solution is....

Snowgirl

divamum wrote:

Thequestions you raise are good ones, OP, and I DO appreciate how it must feel like being plagiarised to see your own images pop up uncredited (hence why I personally don't use uncredited images unless I simply CAN'T get hold of anybody), but I did want to express things from the other side of the equation, too. I'm not sure what the solution is....

My personal feeling is that if you can't find the owner of the photograph, you shouldn't use it. Period. Just because someone has posted it on the web doesn't mean it's free for anyone to use - even without a credit on the original or any other means of finding the owner. Otherwise you're just perpetuating (and I don't mean you personally - just everyone who does this) the myth that it's ok.

jnsuffolk

Not that I"m for peoples stealing other peoples work. but I myself would think that if I put a photo somewhere out there on the net without safeguarding it I would be giving it away. Unfortunately in a me, myself and I world if you don't want something stolen you have to see to the best of you ability that that doesn't happen People just don't care anymore about others. This is the world we've made and now we have to deal with it

divamum

Snowgirl wrote:

My personal feeling is that if you can't find the owner of the photograph, you shouldn't use it. Period. Just because someone has posted it on the web doesn't mean it's free for anyone to use - even without a credit on the original or any other means of finding the owner. Otherwise you're just perpetuating (and I don't mean you personally - just everyone who does this) the myth that it's ok.

Just to clarify - these aren't always on the web - sometimes the COMPANY for whom I performed has had photos taken, published them (or shared them with me electrocnically) and not credited them, or in years gone by, published or given me hard copies that were not credited. I have a couple of images on my website from 8+ years ago that I was NEVER told who shot them, and it would be near impossible to find out now since the auspices under which those performances took place are now defunct. I NEED those images to demonstrate certain roles that I sing (and don't have images from more recent performances). I'm not talking about illicit screen captures or downloads here - that's exactly what I described that I'm NOT doing.

Anyway, just to clarify.

Also, I pose a question: how would the photographers feel if they were NEVER allowed to retain the rights to any of their images, and they were always held in full by the model or people IN the images, and the photographers were expected to pay a fee even if they only wanted to use them in their personal portfolio? That's kind of what it's like as a professional performer. My performance was just as much a professional gig as the photograph which captured it, and I want it for my own use - and am even willing to pay a small fee for it - which I don't think is unreasonable.

To reiterate: I am NOT supporting people stealing images- I can only repeat that I deplore that - but... from the other side of the lens it sometimes feels as though the subjects of images are bypassed a lot of the time too. I have no problem being used in an image, but I DO want to be able to use it myself, too!

Just my probably unpopular 2c. I understand both sides of this discussion, really I do!

Blaker

divamum wrote:

I NEED those images to demonstrate certain roles that I sing (and don't have images from more recent performances).

Also, I pose a question: how would the photographers feel if they were NEVER allowed to retain the rights to any of their images, and they were always held in full by the model or people IN the images, and the photographers were expected to pay a fee even if they only wanted to use them in their personal portfolio? That's kind of what it's like as a professional performer. My performance was just as much a professional gig as the photograph which captured it, and I want it for my own use - and am even willing to pay a small fee for it - which I don't think is unreasonable.

Well, if you really *NEED* those images, then you can always hire your own photographer to take those photos for you, and in the contract be clear that you would like full access and rights to all the photos to use as you need. Or get a friend to take the photos. Or work something out with the event photographer BEFORE the event.
Just because you *NEED* something, doesn't give you the right to take it. ( speaking in general, not to you specifically).

As to photogs that aren't allowed to retain their rights, well that happens all the time, depending on the contract they have with the client, or if they are shooting under a 'work for hire' clause.

The key is to figure out what you need, then take steps to obtain it, legally.


ETA: Also, if the photog who took your photos at one of your performances wanted to license that photo to be used commercially, they couldn't do it without your permission, they would have to get you to sign a model release, and you could refuse to sign it, or ask for $xxxx for doing so.

divamum

Blaker wrote:

Well, if you really *NEED* those images, then you can always hire your own photographer to take those photos for you, and in the contract be clear that you would like full access and rights to all the photos to use as you need. Or get a friend to take the photos. Or work something out with the event photographer BEFORE the event.
Just because you *NEED* something, doesn't give you the right to take it. ( speaking in general, not to you specifically).

As to photogs that aren't allowed to retain their rights, well that happens all the time, depending on the contract they have with the client, or if they are shooting under a 'work for hire' clause.

The key is to figure out what you need, then take steps to obtain it, legally.


ETA: Also, if the photog who took your photos at one of your performances wanted to license that photo to be used commercially, they couldn't do it without your permission, they would have to get you to sign a model release, and you could refuse to sign it, or ask for $xxxx for doing so.

Firstly, let me make it clear that I'm talking about opera, so perhaps things run a little differently in my world than rock'n'roll or other performing types. However, I can tell you with absolute authority that, except for the most famous celebrity performers who sometimes make demands exactly like that (ie allowing personal photographers access, or retaining rights to images of themselves) most of us lesser mortals are expected to waive our rights as part of our contract; it's simply written into the standard contracts that the producing organisation has full rights to use images of us without further ado and believe me, if we were to make a fuss, the gig would go to the next person on the list... who wasn't going to rock the boat.

There are also union issues regarding taking our own pictures; we are actually prohibited from doing so (see exceptions above) and would be heavily smacked down and/or fined were we to be caught. Essentially, the producing body is in charge (and, in a union house, therefore required to uphold union rules); the performers work for that producing body and are subject to whatever is decided over their heads.

I really don't want to get into a war about this and can only reiterate that I DO understand the OP's beef and the responses supporting his POV; as I've said, it's a reasonable complaint and it saddens me that some irresponsible performers have given all of us a bad name. I'm simply trying to present the other side of the equation and point out that there are problems for the performers too. Among my colleagues I know that most of us are entirely prepared to credit and/or pay a reasonable fee for rights, but for whatever reason it's always at risk of becoming an antagonistic instead of mutually helpful relationship. Seems to me there must be a way to keep everybody happy!

mercphoto

jnsuffolk wrote:

Not that I"m for peoples stealing other peoples work. but I myself would think that if I put a photo somewhere out there on the net without safeguarding it I would be giving it away.

And if you leave for the shopping mall and accidentally leave your front door unlocked then I'm free to take your television? This "if its on the net its free" attitude is puzzling....