Thanks for the links sid good information. It has been awhile since I had taken my photography classes and copyrighting photos had been discussed.
How to Fight Back When Your Photo is Stolen—The Volatile Deceiver at Getahugetank.com
- Thread starter Bongo Shrimp
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Thanks for the links sid good information. It has been awhile since I had taken my photography classes and copyrighting photos had been discussed.
Dave3112
2500 Club Member
Why wouldn't you get worked up about someone else profiting off of your work and not you?! I know if I work on something I want to get paid for it unless I volunteer to do the work for free.
If you had a hobby or career that involved any sort of creativity and someone stole your "intellectual property," you'd have a better understanding. The fact is, using photos without permission is illegal. Just because photos are posted on the internet does not release any intellectual property rights. A photo is "owned" by the photographer, plain and simple. It'd be no different than if you were to build something and someone stole it. Photographers pay a lot of money to enable them to do what they do, equipment costs, photo editing software, memory storage media, etc. We photographers have a legal right to protect what we create.
Exactly!
As a wedding photographer, I have had my fair share of copyright questions. It is funny when the local Walmart calls me to confirm that I released the copyright for personal use, when the EXIF data on the files say that it has not. I have had some pretty heated conversations with Mother's of the Bride about what copyright is, and how it works.
(Funny they thought I was going to spend 40+ hours on images, for the $500 they paid me upfront.... LOL)
This.
I went through the pictures as well, and it's blatantly obvious that this guy simply went on Google Images and took the first decent looking picture of the particular species, with disregard for any copyright.
Young Frankenstein
I sniff ozone and relax.
I could be wrong, because I am not a photographer or an expert. But when the content does not say copy write © its ok to use the content, am I wrong ?
That is actually incorrect, photography is considered to be intellectual property and is already copyrighted. The difference you have is that there is registered and unregistered photos. When unregistered it can become more difficult for a photographer to pursue copyright infringement but the rights of the photo still belong to the photographer that took the picture. This take effect from the moment the shutter is pressed.
Sent from my SCH-R720 using Tapatalk 2
OP
OP
Bongo Shrimp
Well-Known Member
Registered trademark has nothing to do with copyright. If you want to sue for damages, you need to hold the copyright with the US Copyright Office. If by registered, you mean with the Copyright Office than that's correct. If you don't actually own the copyright, you can't sue for damages. It's that simple.
Yes meant registered with the Copyright Office. From my understanding of intellectual property you own the copyright if it has been registered with the Copyright Office or not. The difference is that when you have registered than it makes taking legal actions on copyright infringment easier.
OP
OP
Bongo Shrimp
Well-Known Member
Ok yeah. I think it may actually be near impossible or just flat out impossible to sue for damages without owning the copyright in the Copyright Office.
Young Frankenstein
I sniff ozone and relax.
Very touchy subject, for those that make a living from photography, and I understand why, but if you don’t, if this is not the way you bring home the bacon, then why bother with the law ? let people enjoy and share photos.
The issue comes when someone decides to use your photo to profit from it. As in example with the website that was using the op photo without permission and it looks like a lot of other photos from other people. From what it seems they are using these photos without the permission of the original photographer and through these photographs they are making a personal profit. For a site like this there are options that are available for them, they could use stock photos, they could take the photographs themselves of the livestock they have themselves, or they could hire a photographer to do their photography for them.
KJAG
Rogue
Agree. Don't get me wrong there's plenty of talented photographers out there, but I think in the photography world the word or idea of "artist" gets eagerly thrown around quite a bit instead of the more fitting title of "hobbyist." I'm sure the photo of the butterfly fish is sick. Is it the most legendary photo ever of a butterfly fish? Maybe, maybe not. Had this guy not had access to that photo he would've just found a different one to represent that species of fish on his site. I'd personally take it as a compliment if it were my photo.
*(quoted wrong post)
Last edited:
OP
OP
Bongo Shrimp
Well-Known Member
Who cares if you are a photographer or not and what does the quality of my pic have to do with any of this? (although it's a great pic which is why he used it)
As pretty much everyone else will agree, it's not a compliment to have your intellectual property used by someone without your permission. How would you feel if back in college some person you didn't know, copied your work, posted it on their site and essentially put their name on it? You would not be happy because that is called plagiarism. Using someone's photo without asking is essentially plagiarism. It's especially offending if they use to make money such as in this case. I have lots of people ask to use my photos and as long as they give credit where credit is due I let them use it. I even have a pic of mine in an exhibit at a zoo. They asked if they could use it, I asked if I could have my name on it, and they said sure, so I said great, and now it's there on the wall.
So what you're saying is since I'm not a photographer by profession, I should be happy with people using my photos without my permission?
This logic makes no sense to me.
If you feel this way... Um, ok?
KJAG
Rogue
"So what you're saying is since I'm not a photographer by profession, I should be happy with people using my photos without my permission?"
Not sure how you deduced this from my previous post.When I mentioned artist and hobbyist I wasn't drawing a line between pro and amateur, but that's a different topic. I can tell this is a sensitive topic for you B.Shrimp. Not trying to offend anybody. This is a forum so others will have different takes and opinions. Carry on.
Not sure how you deduced this from my previous post.When I mentioned artist and hobbyist I wasn't drawing a line between pro and amateur, but that's a different topic. I can tell this is a sensitive topic for you B.Shrimp. Not trying to offend anybody. This is a forum so others will have different takes and opinions. Carry on.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Bongo Shrimp
Well-Known Member
It's not sensitive. Remember, I won that fight.
I just want to help others who want to do what I did.
Bongo, you did the right thing and I applaud you for taking the time to stand up for your rights as well as explain your process here. In the future, there are much easier and free ways to go about the same process of stopping someone from illegaly using your photos.
For those who are saying that this is an 'opinion...' while it may be a personal choice as to whether to stand up for your legal rights, and it may be an opinion as to whether it's worth pursuing or not, there's no opinion about the legality of the issue. The FACT is, it's illegal to use anyone's (professional, artist, hobbyist or someone who's picked up a camera for the very first time and accidentally shot a photo of their own foot) photos, without permission. With very few exceptions, ALL photos are AUTOMATICALLY copyrighted the moment the shutter is pressed. There's absolutely no need for any copyright notice, water mark or any other symbol, to protect the photographer's rights. If you use their photo without permission, you have violated copyright law. If the photo has ALSO been registered (Not trademarked as that doesn't pertain to photographs), you could also be sued for damages. There is no need for a notice of registration, so you have no idea if a photo you just STOLE has been registered or not. However, it's YOUR responsibility to know that it HAS been copyrighted. It's simple...if you are looking at a photograph, online, in person, in a magazine, on ANY website, it HAS been copyrighted, I guarantee it. Again, ALL photos are AUTOMATICALLY and INSTANTLY copyrighted, the moment the shutter is pressed. AGAIN, NO watermarks, copyright notice or any other symbols or statements are needed, to inform the public of ownership. The "public" has the burden to already know the law...
Many copyright violators have this idea that if it's on the internet, it must be free use, FALSE. Many copyright violators know the law but figure "what are the chances that the photographer will see my illegal use and well, they can't prove it anyway..." FALSE. It's as easy as proving the date that the photograph was uploaded to my computer, usually within a day of the photo being taken and ALWAYS a date prior to the date of theft, since no one sees my photos unless they're uploaded to the internet, which is AFTER they're uploaded to my computer. Also, a nifty lil' trick that I use, which can be circumvented if someone knows what to look for and how to do it... hidden in the EXIF data of every photo I take, is my name, as photographer and copyright holder. However, I still have all the proof I need, by the date that the photo was uploaded to my computer.
For Profit or Not for profit makes no difference, in most cases. If you <Right Click> <Save> a photo that you see on a website, post that website on this forum or anywhere else, you've violated copyright law, unless you've obtained permission from the photographer...period.
There are a few exceptions but very few.
So, yes people are entitled to their own opinions about whether someone should "feel complimented," should pursue someone else who's used their photos, for or NOT for profit, but again, legally, facts are facts, regardless of opinions...
For those who are saying that this is an 'opinion...' while it may be a personal choice as to whether to stand up for your legal rights, and it may be an opinion as to whether it's worth pursuing or not, there's no opinion about the legality of the issue. The FACT is, it's illegal to use anyone's (professional, artist, hobbyist or someone who's picked up a camera for the very first time and accidentally shot a photo of their own foot) photos, without permission. With very few exceptions, ALL photos are AUTOMATICALLY copyrighted the moment the shutter is pressed. There's absolutely no need for any copyright notice, water mark or any other symbol, to protect the photographer's rights. If you use their photo without permission, you have violated copyright law. If the photo has ALSO been registered (Not trademarked as that doesn't pertain to photographs), you could also be sued for damages. There is no need for a notice of registration, so you have no idea if a photo you just STOLE has been registered or not. However, it's YOUR responsibility to know that it HAS been copyrighted. It's simple...if you are looking at a photograph, online, in person, in a magazine, on ANY website, it HAS been copyrighted, I guarantee it. Again, ALL photos are AUTOMATICALLY and INSTANTLY copyrighted, the moment the shutter is pressed. AGAIN, NO watermarks, copyright notice or any other symbols or statements are needed, to inform the public of ownership. The "public" has the burden to already know the law...
Many copyright violators have this idea that if it's on the internet, it must be free use, FALSE. Many copyright violators know the law but figure "what are the chances that the photographer will see my illegal use and well, they can't prove it anyway..." FALSE. It's as easy as proving the date that the photograph was uploaded to my computer, usually within a day of the photo being taken and ALWAYS a date prior to the date of theft, since no one sees my photos unless they're uploaded to the internet, which is AFTER they're uploaded to my computer. Also, a nifty lil' trick that I use, which can be circumvented if someone knows what to look for and how to do it... hidden in the EXIF data of every photo I take, is my name, as photographer and copyright holder. However, I still have all the proof I need, by the date that the photo was uploaded to my computer.
For Profit or Not for profit makes no difference, in most cases. If you <Right Click> <Save> a photo that you see on a website, post that website on this forum or anywhere else, you've violated copyright law, unless you've obtained permission from the photographer...period.
There are a few exceptions but very few.
So, yes people are entitled to their own opinions about whether someone should "feel complimented," should pursue someone else who's used their photos, for or NOT for profit, but again, legally, facts are facts, regardless of opinions...
OP
OP
Bongo Shrimp
Well-Known Member
This is a great addition! Thanks!
BTW the whole process of using DMCA.com cost $10 per month but you can cancel it at any time. Truthfully you don't need DMCA.com but they are helpful in guiding you through the process. I am lucky enough to have a lawyer in the family but you don't need a lawyer at all to do what I did. I have to credit my lawyer however for helping me write up that nice explanation of what happened and how I/we handled it.
Similar threads
