Website has posted my shots w/o permission

photodoug · July 30, 2005

I took concert photos at a public, free concert. I've posted the shots to my smugmug account as public albums. I do not have releases for any of my shots. I find two of my shots, one altered, displayed on the band's website.

Question: I did not grant them the right to use my photos...do they have a right since I don't have a release?

Question: What proof do I have that they're mine? I did not post w/copyright banner (I'm doing that now).

Thanks guys...gals.

GREAPER · July 30, 2005

photodoug wrote:

I took concert photos at a public, free concert. I've posted the shots to my smugmug account as public albums. I do not have releases for any of my shots. I find two of my shots, one altered, displayed on the band's website.

Question: I did not grant them the right to use my photos...do they have a right since I don't have a release?

The fact that you do not have a release may allow them to take legal action against you if you try to sell the images, but it in no way gives them the right to use your images.

photodoug wrote:

Question: What proof do I have that they're mine? I did not post w/copyright banner (I'm doing that now).

Thanks guys...gals.

Proving that they are yours should not be that difficult. Do you have other shots in the series taken from the same vantage point, at the same time. I bet they do not. This is one of the best reasons not to delete your "bad" shots. If I have a good picture of a bird on a branch and 5 bad pictures of the same bird on the same branch, and all they have is the good one, I think that would be plenty of proof.

The images belong to you, release or not, copyright imprint or not. You owned the copyright the instant you pushed the shutter release button. If you have not registered the copyright you may have limits on the amount you can receive in damages. Wether or not you have a copyright mark on the photo does not affect your rights.

Without registering the copyright, you are limited to the amount of actual damages. How much would they have had to pay to legally use the image.

Bodwick · July 30, 2005

photodoug wrote:

I took concert photos at a public, free concert. I've posted the shots to my smugmug account as public albums. I do not have releases for any of my shots. I find two of my shots, one altered, displayed on the band's website.

Question: I did not grant them the right to use my photos...do they have a right since I don't have a release?

Question: What proof do I have that they're mine? I did not post w/copyright banner (I'm doing that now).

Thanks guys...gals.

I looked under Photodoug and found some nice shots but no band pic's....

Whats the band site details?

You should be considering action unless some sort of payment is forthcoming.

If they had done the right thing and asked for use of your shots you could have agreed a price or maybe offered them the use free (If they are a load of pre-teen band members) to have your shots stolen from SmugMug and used without permission is simply theft....

I thought it was not possible to copy pic's from SmugMug.....Sounds like you've been mugged by some smug sob..........

Ask Andy for legal advice....It's not in the same league as being asked to remove an earing at work but I'm sure he'll have a view on how to start legal proceedings.

Could you sue SmugMug for allowing your pic's to be used/copied? They can then use their legal team to sue the band......

A nice can of worms to keep the Lawyers busy for age's......

GREAPER · July 30, 2005

Bodwick wrote:

I thought it was not possible to copy pic's from SmugMug.....

That is not correct, it is impossible to stop people from copying photos from smugmug if they are veiwable by the public. The best you can do is limit the size and resolution that they can see.

Bodwick wrote:

Ask Andy for legal advice....

Ask a lawyer for legal advice.

Bodwick wrote:

Could you sue SmugMug for allowing your pic's to be used/copied? They can then use their legal team to sue the band......

No, smugmug is not responsible for images saved from your smugmug pages by other users, nor is it possible to stop people from doing it. Smugmug does it's best to provide you with protection tools but if people want to they can print screen and crop to your photo and nothing an stop them if your photos are public.

Right from smugmugs terms of service...

"Smugmug takes no responsibility and assumes no liability for any Content posted by you or any third party."

photodoug · July 30, 2005

GREAPER wrote:

The fact that you do not have a release may allow them to take legal action against you if you try to sell the images, but it in no way gives them the right to use your images.

Proving that they are yours should not be that difficult. Do you have other shots in the series taken from the same vantage point, at the same time. I bet they do not. This is one of the best reasons not to delete your "bad" shots. If I have a good picture of a bird on a branch and 5 bad pictures of the same bird on the same branch, and all they have is the good one, I think that would be plenty of proof.

The images belong to you, release or not, copyright imprint or not. You owned the copyright the instant you pushed the shutter release button. If you have not registered the copyright you may have limits on the amount you can receive in damages. Wether or not you have a copyright mark on the photo does not affect your rights.

Without registering the copyright, you are limited to the amount of actual damages. How much would they have had to pay to legally use the image.

thanks a bunch. You clarified things. I'll stew on this a bit.

I fully realize that public albums mean that others can view my stuff and save it. If for personal reasons, say to view on their own drive, no biggie. But if they're making money with my shots...which is what a band's website is intended to do, consideration is due. Groupies do it for free, photogs do it for consideration: promotion, pay, trade.

Time to buy a book on the subject of photography business I'm a thinkin.

BTW, my smugmug acct. is "photo-doug"

Andy · July 30, 2005

GREAPER wrote:

That is not correct, it is impossible to stop people from copying photos from smugmug if they are veiwable by the public. The best you can do is limit the size and resolution that they can see.

very true - and just to be clear: this applies to *any* photo-sharing or photo-displaying website. if i can see it on my monitor, i can copy it!

Sam · July 30, 2005

photodoug wrote:

thanks a bunch. You clarified things. I'll stew on this a bit.

I fully realize that public albums mean that others can view my stuff and save it. If for personal reasons, say to view on their own drive, no biggie. But if they're making money with my shots...which is what a band's website is intended to do, consideration is due. Groupies do it for free, photogs do it for consideration: promotion, pay, trade.

Time to buy a book on the subject of photography business I'm a thinkin.

BTW, my smugmug acct. is "photo-doug"

Doug,

Obviously I don't know the full particulars with regard to this use of your photos, but why not just contact the band and talk to them? They may not know it's ileagal to copy, and use the photos. Would you be happy with say free admission and back stage access? It seems as though this approch would be easier and more amicable. Also I don't see enough $$ in this to get the shysters involved.

Just my thoughts,

Sam

photodoug · July 30, 2005

Sam wrote:

Doug,

Obviously I don't know the full particulars with regard to this use of your photos, but why not just contact the band and talk to them? They may not know it's ileagal to copy, and use the photos. Would you be happy with say free admission and back stage access? It seems as though this approch would be easier and more amicable. Also I don't see enough $$ in this to get the shysters involved.

Just my thoughts,

Sam

That's what I'm considering. I checked out their website and find that my shots have been renamed, mislabeled and even edited. Seems likely that someone found them and sent them into the webmaster...who in turn did not check them out. A copyright notice on the photos would have clarified ownership since the xmp file information did not survive.

No shysters is a good motto.

Funny, the website itself displays a copyright notice...although it's built on www.freeweb.com, so I guess again that their webmaster is operating cluelessly and unprofessionally. No harm intended, just stepping on toes.

Dee · July 30, 2005

Photos, designers, etc.

photodoug wrote:

That's what I'm considering. I checked out their website and find that my shots have been renamed, mislabeled and even edited. Seems likely that someone found them and sent them into the webmaster...who in turn did not check them out. A copyright notice on the photos would have clarified ownership since the xmp file information did not survive.

No shysters is a good motto.

Funny, the website itself displays a copyright notice...although it's built on www.freeweb.com, so I guess again that their webmaster is operating cluelessly and unprofessionally. No harm intended, just stepping on toes.

It's common practice for a person setting things up for a website to rename the files in a way that makes logic to them and their particular system or naming convention.

It's common for a "designer" to hand pictures to the website programmer who's job is to program what s/he's been given by the designer.

It's extremely common for a designer to put their own touch on an image. They tone it, color it, duotone it, crop it, clone stuff out, add stuff in -- all the time! In fact they think it's expected of them to change the photo to suit the need of the piece they are designing.

It is not the website programmer's job to worry about copyrights. It's whoever is supplying the photos to the programmer who is responsible.

It should be the job of the person authorizing and paying for the website to make sure photos are used legally -- but they often aren't aware either.

Designers (beginners in particular) need to be educated about copyright. There's an air of "if it's on the web it's up for grabs" attitude, particularly among younger people.

It would help to have your copyright visible on the photo -- but that's no guarantee that it will prevent a designer or website designer from still using your photo. It helps because you can say, "I'm the copyright holder of the photo you are using on your website without my permission."

I read in one forum where someone copied the image and used it on a website, leaving the copyright information on the picture!!!!!

Again, continual education is a must, people just aren't aware that it's wrong when so much copyrighted information is on the web.

When the photographer contacted the website and informed them that the photo was his and his usual fee for web use is $, the website paid him for use of the photo.

As a designer, I always try to find out where the photo I'm being given to use came from. Even royalty-free images are not supposed to be "shared." If the stock house who is "selling" the image can't find you listed as a buyer in their data base they can go after you for copyright infringement, and they do.

But, I learned this when a client requested I find pictures to illustrate a brochure. I don't know if they teach about stock photo houses in school or not, but after negotiating payment and terms I learned a lot.

Some of these terms expire after just ONE year, and you are legally supposed to destroy any printed matter that is using the photo, unless you "renew" the usage by paying for the image again!

Also, it's restrictions like this and the amount of money the stock houses charge that increases the illegal use of images found on the web.

Even "royalty-free" images have restrictions and it's important to read the fine print! For example you can not use the images if they are incorporated into products for sale, like t-shirts, mousepads, calendars, etc. A special license has to be negotiated.

When people see the same image used on different websites (yes, it happens all the time) it reinforces the concept that it's OK to grab it from the web and use it on their site. (everyone's using that image)

So, by all means inform them that it's your picture, and it's being used illegally! Continue the education process!

photodoug · July 30, 2005

Dee wrote:

It's common practice for a person setting things up for a website to rename the files in a way that makes logic to them and their particular system or naming convention.

It's common for a "designer" to hand pictures to the website programmer who's job is to program what s/he's been given by the designer.

It's extremely common for a designer to put their own touch on an image. They tone it, color it, duotone it, crop it, clone stuff out, add stuff in -- all the time! In fact they think it's expected of them to change the photo to suit the need of the piece they are designing.

It is not the website programmer's job to worry about copyrights. It's whoever is supplying the photos to the programmer who is responsible.

It should be the job of the person authorizing and paying for the website to make sure photos are used legally -- but they often aren't aware either.

Designers (beginners in particular) need to be educated about copyright. There's an air of "if it's on the web it's up for grabs" attitude, particularly among younger people.

It would help to have your copyright visible on the photo -- but that's no guarantee that it will prevent a designer or website designer from still using your photo. It helps because you can say, "I'm the copyright holder of the photo you are using on your website without my permission."

I read in one forum where someone copied the image and used it on a website, leaving the copyright information on the picture!!!!!

Again, continual education is a must, people just aren't aware that it's wrong when so much copyrighted information is on the web.

When the photographer contacted the website and informed them that the photo was his and his usual fee for web use is $, the website paid him for use of the photo.

As a designer, I always try to find out where the photo I'm being given to use came from. Even royalty-free images are not supposed to be "shared." If the stock house who is "selling" the image can't find you listed as a buyer in their data base they can go after you for copyright infringement, and they do.

But, I learned this when a client requested I find pictures to illustrate a brochure. I don't know if they teach about stock photo houses in school or not, but after negotiating payment and terms I learned a lot.

Some of these terms expire after just ONE year, and you are legally supposed to destroy any printed matter that is using the photo, unless you "renew" the usage by paying for the image again!

Also, it's restrictions like this and the amount of money the stock houses charge that increases the illegal use of images found on the web.

Even "royalty-free" images have restrictions and it's important to read the fine print! For example you can not use the images if they are incorporated into products for sale, like t-shirts, mousepads, calendars, etc. A special license has to be negotiated.

When people see the same image used on different websites (yes, it happens all the time) it reinforces the concept that it's OK to grab it from the web and use it on their site. (everyone's using that image)

So, by all means inform them that it's your picture, and it's being used illegally! Continue the education process!

I took yours, and others, advice and informed them...we'll see when it's read on Monday. I thought I had to "nip it in the bud" so that I wouldn't become lazy in allowing it to occur. It isn't right for one commercial venture to benefit from another's commercial venture without paying for it. Commerce is good for all.

And I think its important to remain reasonable when negotiating consideration for services/goods. Any input by the pros here about fees and contract terms for website-use of photographs?

I see now that I need to become more business-like and put that darned degree to work. Quickbooks here I come!

While we're on this thread, any critique on this...one shot in the series under question. I cropped it tight to get the focus back onto the drums and drummer. And I like how busy all of the gear is...offsets her relaxed, focused stance and great mane of hair.

Seymore · July 30, 2005

photodoug wrote:

While we're on this thread, any critique on this...one shot in the series under question. I cropped it tight to get the focus back onto the drums and drummer. And I like how busy all of the gear is...offsets her relaxed, focused stance and great mane of hair.

I'd like to see this shot slightly re-framed. The building, and the power line, need to go IMPO. They really distract from the shot. You may want to get closer and lower... or up on the stage?

I've found that looking beyond the subject can really make, or break, a shot. This is without doing major PS surgery... Look at your backdrop.

And, I'll let others comment about the specifics of the shot. Personally I don't feel edumacated enough...

JamesJWeg · July 30, 2005

photodoug wrote:

I took concert photos at a public, free concert. I've posted the shots to my smugmug account as public albums. I do not have releases for any of my shots. I find two of my shots, one altered, displayed on the band's website.

Question: I did not grant them the right to use my photos...do they have a right since I don't have a release?

Question: What proof do I have that they're mine? I did not post w/copyright banner (I'm doing that now).

Thanks guys...gals.

I see one photo on thier site that is very clearly yours. Might I suggest that as part of the "settlement" that you get releases from all band members for that event, just so you could sell them if you wanted.

James.

photodoug · July 30, 2005

Seymore wrote:

I'd like to see this shot slightly re-framed. The building, and the power line, need to go IMPO. They really distract from the shot. You may want to get closer and lower... or up on the stage?

I've found that looking beyond the subject can really make, or break, a shot. This is without doing major PS surgery... Look at your backdrop.

And, I'll let others comment about the specifics of the shot. Personally I don't feel edumacated enough...

I know and agree with what you say. I had a jerky roadie behind me kicking me offstage even tho I had an all access pass...power tripping carnie type. So I had to shoot and run fast. I saw the looming background noise but I couldn't move forward to swing around. Oh well, it's always a challenge out in the real world. Here's a stylized version, eliminates background noise, but lost upper drumstick sux

Seymore · August 1, 2005

Mucho better!

You've taken the background out, and left the focus on the drummer. Now, that stinkin' power line is still there. Might do well to clone that puppy out. Yea... a bit more work, but it's still prominent feature to be removed! Sorta like what I did here, and here...

RE: that upper stick, just leaves more for the imagination...

photodoug wrote:

I know and agree with what you say. I had a jerky roadie behind me kicking me offstage even tho I had an all access pass...power tripping carnie type. So I had to shoot and run fast. I saw the looming background noise but I couldn't move forward to swing around. Oh well, it's always a challenge out in the real world. Here's a stylized version, eliminates background noise, but lost upper drumstick sux

photocat · August 1, 2005

what I totally lack in this discussion is the fact that you could be pleased and proud that they took your pics... Layers seem harsh if you could indeed talk to them and tell them "he guys, thanks for using my pics, but there should be something in it for me too". As to credit you by name for the pics...
I find that copyright is becoming really really a nuissance, in a bad way, for shots that in some cases are not worth the trouble.
I am in a constand battle with the National Trust here in UK who claims that inside their properties, you can not snap an idiotic picture for your own album due to copyrights...

I agree that photographers need some form of protection, and in the first place, putting copyrighted by on the pics would be the first step, but it seems that people forget how rewarding it can be to be published/viewed/ even when not getting paid for it.

I find it a bit worrysome that we suddenly all need to start taking photographs where money is the main reasoning behind. What about the pure pleasure of photography and the sharing of it shere for that pleasure.

I mean, come on Doug, it is not the rolling Stones or the beatles...
Tit for tat (you get published, and if they credit you, you both gain)

photocat · August 1, 2005

RE: that upper stick, just leaves more for the imagination...[/QUOTE]

I find it a bit stupid without the stick... I mean, it is a drummer, you KNOW there must be a drumstick... Why clone it out? It is the main tool for the drummer... feels like a picture of a orchestra conductor without the baton...

JamesJWeg · August 1, 2005

photocat wrote:

RE: that upper stick, just leaves more for the imagination...
I find it a bit stupid without the stick... I mean, it is a drummer, you KNOW there must be a drumstick... Why clone it out? It is the main tool for the drummer... feels like a picture of a orchestra conductor without the baton...

Yeah, I would go back and so it again, do the layer thing and keep the detail on the stick.

James.

dragon300zx · August 1, 2005

andy wrote:

very true - and just to be clear: this applies to *any* photo-sharing or photo-displaying website. if i can see it on my monitor, i can copy it!

I don't know if they fixed it yet but I reported a loophole to the guys last week. Although your right if you can see it you can do a screen shot and get the photo that way it seems that the right click protection on the galleries only works on the galleries. If you enable sharing and create a link to the file for viewing on a forum like dgrin, you can then go to the forum view the file, and right click download it from there.

JamesJWeg · August 1, 2005

dragon300zx wrote:

I don't know if they fixed it yet but I reported a loophole to the guys last week. Although your right if you can see it you can do a screen shot and get the photo that way it seems that the right click protection on the galleries only works on the galleries. If you enable sharing and create a link to the file for viewing on a forum like dgrin, you can then go to the forum view the file, and right click download it from there.

There is always a way to steal on the web. We can't defend 100% but when a biz uses publicly without permission they just messed big time.

James.

photodoug · August 1, 2005

photocat wrote:

what I totally lack in this discussion is the fact that you could be pleased and proud that they took your pics... Layers seem harsh if you could indeed talk to them and tell them "he guys, thanks for using my pics, but there should be something in it for me too". As to credit you by name for the pics...
I find that copyright is becoming really really a nuissance, in a bad way, for shots that in some cases are not worth the trouble.
I am in a constand battle with the National Trust here in UK who claims that inside their properties, you can not snap an idiotic picture for your own album due to copyrights...

I agree that photographers need some form of protection, and in the first place, putting copyrighted by on the pics would be the first step, but it seems that people forget how rewarding it can be to be published/viewed/ even when not getting paid for it.

I find it a bit worrysome that we suddenly all need to start taking photographs where money is the main reasoning behind. What about the pure pleasure of photography and the sharing of it shere for that pleasure.

I mean, come on Doug, it is not the rolling Stones or the beatles...
Tit for tat (you get published, and if they credit you, you both gain)

Point made and taken. Yup, one of my first reactions was pride. Glad they liked it enough to use. Then I realized that a commercial venture was out to make money and they used a little bit of my work to help them do it. W/o compensation. Not fair. Not the Stones but still a commercial venture. I'm not going to turn the screws on them, not by any means, but I do expect us to come to a fair agreement.

Thanks for your input!

ginger_55 · August 1, 2005

Just looking in a second, want to say that I really like that drummer. (In fact, in the one at the top of this page, I did not notice the background until it was mentioned, and that is a biggie for me on band shots.) (I have a few bluegrass ones from this weekend, am still disgusted that I messed up a bit on focus.....should have used 1600, shoulda, shoulda........I am hoping to refind the guy. If he keeps letting me annoy him, he can have the D shot, my guy makes love to his violin, I really like your drummer's style, too.)

And I like your avatar, Doug.

ginger

Bodwick · August 1, 2005

photocat wrote:

what I totally lack in this discussion is the fact that you could be pleased and proud that they took your pics... Layers seem harsh if you could indeed talk to them and tell them "he guys, thanks for using my pics, but there should be something in it for me too". As to credit you by name for the pics...
I find that copyright is becoming really really a nuissance, in a bad way, for shots that in some cases are not worth the trouble.
I am in a constand battle with the National Trust here in UK who claims that inside their properties, you can not snap an idiotic picture for your own album due to copyrights...

Agreed, I enjoy seeing any of my stuff on the web or in print.
I posted pic's with a 'free use just post a credit & link' blurb for ages for any pic's I want in the public. I don't post anything I don't want out in the public. It's that simple.

Have a read of this:
WAR ON PHOTOGRAPHY II
http://www.editorialphoto.com/outreach/wap2.asp

If you post your pic's onto SmugMug or anywere else and are trying to sell them you don't expect anyone to just take them. If that means simple protection such as 'right click copy' being disabled, which is then being by-past by say, viewing the code and going to the pic that way, then an extra effort has been made to take somthing by theft. I'm aware that nothing is safe on the net. If you can't protect a Gov. Military system from a 16year old kid then there is no point going to endless efforts to try and protect your pic's. But any protection that has been purposfully been evaded shows an effort that is past a simple mistake.

The copyright issue is fair. It's your pic you choose what to do with it. But it needs to be kept in perspective. Just because a pic's been used on the web does not make it a $1000 shot. Ask for $25 or whatever you feel fair, a credit and link is a start.

As for the National Trust I think they lost it long ago.
I've shot Bodiam Castle over twenty years and this year was the first time I've been approached allthough not the first time I've crossed swords with the manager.
6am packing to leave.
Manager strides down and opens with "What are you going to do with those pictures"
Me "I'm not sure yet, why?"
Him "I'm the manager here."
Me "Yes I know, George Bailey"(Spoken as I moved in rather too close)
Him"Oh":uhoh (As he realises it's his 'friend' Bod)
Me "Now F off back to your ticket office"
Not even a good morning from this little Hitler, anyway he skuttled off to his office and I guess I ruined his day........
National Trust or National Disgrace? try a search......I never spotted him at 4.30am a few weeks before, next time I'll knock and ask if it's ok to start shooting...

photocat wrote:

I agree that photographers need some form of protection, and in the first place, putting copyrighted by on the pics would be the first step, but it seems that people forget how rewarding it can be to be published/viewed/ even when not getting paid for it.

I quite agree.
So much on Copyright that your head will buzz...
http://www.editorialphoto.com/copyright/
Your choice on how far into this you want to go...

photocat wrote:

I find it a bit worrysome that we suddenly all need to start taking photographs where money is the main reasoning behind. What about the pure pleasure of photography and the sharing of it shere for that pleasure.

Agreed again........

photocat wrote:

I mean, come on Doug, it is not the rolling Stones or the beatles...
Tit for tat (you get published, and if they credit you, you both gain)

Push for the credit and a link..........When the Stones book you it's time to sort out a price (and speak to a Lawyer).......

If your stuck with prices the EP Editorial Estimator v1.10 from
http://www.editorialphoto.com/

works well as a free starter into pricing...
http://www.editorialphoto.com/resources/estimator/

Bod.....

Who's sites am I looking at:
http://thomasbarbey.com/index.cfm (Flash)
and similar.....
http://www.parkeharrison.com/

photocat · August 1, 2005

Have a read of this:
WAR ON PHOTOGRAPHY II

I have read their article and find it very very interesting...
It strengthens me in my idea that there are lots of snappers, but not much really really good photographers... As in so darn good that people are willing to pay for it.

It can never hurt I think to keep my own ego in between boundaries, because bumping my nose against a wall hurts.

We are only so sellable as what are others are willing to pay us. If what we ask is too much for what they want to give, guess who will have to give in.

After reading your word fight with the ticket agent, I might put on my bad mouthing too next time... I was grinning all the way reading it.

Thanks for your very extended mail and the very good links. I will need some more time to explore them.

Lovely shot you shared of the castle. (is still on my to do list)

photodoug · August 1, 2005

ginger_55 wrote:

Just looking in a second, want to say that I really like that drummer. (In fact, in the one at the top of this page, I did not notice the background until it was mentioned, and that is a biggie for me on band shots.) (I have a few bluegrass ones from this weekend, am still disgusted that I messed up a bit on focus.....should have used 1600, shoulda, shoulda........I am hoping to refind the guy. If he keeps letting me annoy him, he can have the D shot, my guy makes love to his violin, I really like your drummer's style, too.)

And I like your avatar, Doug.

ginger

my avatar is missing the Corona...soon to come w/version 2

photodoug · August 1, 2005

Seymore wrote:

Mucho better! You've taken the background out, and left the focus on the drummer. Now, that stinkin' power line is still there. Might do well to clone that puppy out. Yea... a bit more work, but it's still prominent feature to be removed! Sorta like what I did here, and here...

RE: that upper stick, just leaves more for the imagination...

no more power line. you did a bang-up job of removing that extra head.

Seymore · August 2, 2005

photodoug wrote:

no more power line. you did a bang-up job of removing that extra head.

Good job Doug. I knew you could do it. BTW, interesting "tail" on the drummer.

And, as was mentioned earlier, a layer to insert the top stick may a good thing. I'd like to see what you come up with.

[/hijack]

Website has posted my shots w/o permission

Comments