This is exactly where the agencies should act  - and do something for their 60-85% share. But they usually don't.
This kind of sites are very bad for our industry. I already lost 2-3 good models cuz of these stupid meme sites.

Sorry I thought the other one went wrong....I'm going to cancel the other


Inviato dal mio iPad utilizzando Tapatalk

It looks like they are equal opportunity thief - I saw watermarks from SS, DT and 123 on only a few images so there are probably many more.  This should definitely be reported to the agencies and I hope they follow up.

OMG...did u inform SS?

what would they say???
if you try to write CONTACT US, good luck to you.
i am still waiting for a reply i wrote them 2 months ago. no sign of life in Contributors Relations either!

they've all gone outside to playing pokemon
with their pokes they found on fb

Quote from: KnowYourOnions on July 28, 2016, 06:41

OMG...did u inform SS?

Yes I did... but i think it's more effective if the picture's owner report copyright infringements to Facebook so that they can close the page if many photographers report it.


Inviato dal mio iPad utilizzando Tapatalk

good luck with that. fb has their own fine prints where they too rip off fb ppl
in where they waive their responsiblity of fb using their photos,etc..
you're asking the fox in the hen-house to save your chicken???

I have reported the Facebook page to 123RF, Depositphotos and Dreamstime.

So he's a liar as well. People like that should suffer the consequences of their actions, so that they grow and become productive and law obedient citizens. I hope they get sued.

So he's a liar as well. People like that should suffer the consequences of their actions, so that they grow and become productive and law obedient citizens. I hope they get sued.

what did i say about social media??? they become millionaires using other ppl's stuff
and everyone thinks it is so cool that "it's all free"...not realising the fine prints give them
all the "rights" to abuse you.

scavengers all for the roadkill who gladly let their bodies rot , as the saying goes!

Quote from: Chichikov on July 29, 2016, 04:25

I have contacted the Facebook page too.

They answered me:
�Noi non utilizziamo queste immagini a scopo di lucro�

"We don't make any profit with these images"

�Noi e 123RF abbiamo un patto
Possiamo prendere le loro immagini in cambio di pubblicit�

"Us and 123RF we have a deal.
We can use their images in compensation of advertising"

�Dal momento che abbiamo utilizzato le loro immagini (da un anno a questa parte), le loro entrate sono quasi raddoppiate�

"From the moment we begun to use their images (one year ago) their income has almost doubled"

Then he has blocked me.

and fb's income???
consider each time you add your personal photos and dirty laundry on fb to share with your "friends'
including your geomap for burglars to know when your house is vacant when you go away on vacation
and all those family photos of your kids, to be tagged by pedophiles,etc..[/b]

you are contributing another dollar(s) to his millions...

[in green] Exactly why I don't do the "post everything I am doing" thing.  I have old friends, many professional industry photographers, and some charities members I donate my time to.  So mostly we share photos.  But you are right, one must be pretty careful on FB.  I used it for my advantage in April when my brother passed away from cancer.  A young 56 years old.  I contacted 2-3 FB friends who were my old wrestling teammates.  That connection alone got my brother 200 people at his funeral service.  My old wrestling students, our high school wrestling coaches, and people I haven't see in 35 years.  It was a good send off. 

Anyway, not to go off topic too much, FB is very powerful, good and bad. 

Facebook have a procedure for reporting infringements. Every time I used it content has been promptly removed.  Just use that. There's no point contacting page owners.

this facebook page is so useless and full of junk that i can't see who would visit it intentinally. And i think the one who created has a maximum of 1 neuron.

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on July 31, 2016, 01:40

Facebook have a procedure for reporting infringements. Every time I used it content has been promptly removed.  Just use that. There's no point contacting page owners.

I have reported the page using the "normal" instruments offered by Facebook and their answer was that there was no intellectual property issue on this page�
So, then, I have tried directly by email.

Or am I missing something?

Don't try and report the whole page. Find your photo get it full screen, click "Options" at the bottom, click "report photo" from the list check "I think it shouldn't be on facebook" click "something else" check "I think it's an unauthorized use of my intellectual property" follow the instructions (you will need to complete a form). Facebook aren't going to look through the page and work out if there are any issues. Even if it's obvious, as that would be acknowledging some sort of responsibility on their part for checking the content on their site.

They will remove the page if they get enough complaints from copyright holders about their individual images. They wont be interested in general reports about the page from people who don't own the images. They aren't interested in taking responsibility for assessing the whole page without the specific reports.

Quote from: Chichikov on July 31, 2016, 03:37

.....I understand that Facebook cannot scroll down the page to find issues, but in the case of this page Facebook does not need to check all the page to see if there are issues, because all the page is a violation of the intellectual properties, from the top post.

It isn't to do with how long it will take. They just aren't interested in policing content in this way. They don't want to be thought of as responsible for checking content put on their site, they leave it to us to do the policing of our own work. It sucks and hopefully one day it will change, but for now if you want content removed you need to do it how I have said.

Is a site legally responsible of the published content or not?

Quote from: Chichikov on July 31, 2016, 05:46

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on July 31, 2016, 04:01

Quote from: Chichikov on July 31, 2016, 03:37

.....I understand that Facebook cannot scroll down the page to find issues, but in the case of this page Facebook does not need to check all the page to see if there are issues, because all the page is a violation of the intellectual properties, from the top post.

It isn't to do with how long it will take. They just aren't interested in policing content in this way. They don't want to be thought of as responsible for checking content put on their site, they leave it to us to do the policing of our own work. It sucks and hopefully one day it will change, but for now if you want content removed you need to do it how I have said.

Is a site legally responsible of the published content or not?

"15.2:
If anyone brings a claim against us related to your actions, content or information on Facebook, you will indemnify and hold us harmless from and against all damages, losses, and expenses of any kind (including reasonable legal fees and costs) related to such claim. Although we provide rules for user conduct, we do not control or direct users' actions on Facebook and are not responsible for the content or information users transmit or share on Facebook. We are not responsible for any offensive, inappropriate, obscene, unlawful or otherwise objectionable content or information you may encounter on Facebook. We are not responsible for the conduct, whether online or offline, of any user of Facebook."

Most sites won't deal with anyone other than the IP holder.
It seems that at least some agencies also won't deal with this sort of thing unless the actual copyright holder makes the request, if even then.

Thank you ShadySue!

This is what says FB (or other sites), but it is their rules.
Their rules are not the Law, and no rule can be contrary to the Law.

So what says the Law about the sites responsibility for content?

http://corporate.findlaw.com/intellectual-property/website-provider-liability-for-user-content-and-actions.html/

"Contributory infringement occurs when a party knows of an infringing activity and substantially participates in that activity. While the existing cases have not definitively addressed when a website is contributorily infringing based on its users. activities, the cases generally have suggested a notice-based liability standard. In other words, once a website receives notice that a user is committing infringement, the website will be deemed to be substantially participating in the infringement if it does not remove the infringement within a reasonable period of time. (Note: The courts have not yet defined what is a suitable "notice" that alleges copyright infringement; for now, each notice must be analyzed on its own terms.) Of course, if a website actually knows of a particular infringement based on its practices, this knowledge will also trigger the duty to act. Thus, to minimize exposure for contributory copyright infringement, websites should (a) try to reduce actual knowledge of user-generated content by not monitoring their services, and (b) respond promptly to notices alleging that a user is committing copyright infringement."

Quote from: Chichikov on July 31, 2016, 06:57

"15.2:
...Thus, to minimize exposure for contributory copyright infringement, websites should (a) try to reduce actual knowledge of user-generated content by not monitoring their services..."

This is their attitude, they wont check the content. They literally don't want to know because knowing would open them up to being sued. They will only respond to the actual copyright holder.

yes, or so they tell you they don't check content.
like who does not know that agency which specializes in free porn movies???
this is the first thing you see in their waiver too.
but they, and the contributors, make tons of money from traffic and ads.

Quote from: andy_arden on July 31, 2016, 02:37

this facebook page is so useless and full of junk that i can't see who would visit it intentinally. And i think the one who created has a maximum of 1 neuron.

about half of the world population is "mononeuron"

LOL, half the world pop??? u kidding me???
more like 98.6% ...
how many friends can one really have, i thought even 10 is too many for me to entertain
and have a good conversation , considering i have only so many free hours a week!!!
yet these ppl have thousands and they poke you and say , :hey whatsup??"
and when you do tell them and ask them ... "they don't write anything , but poke you again!"

i like your defitiion of such ppl... mononeuron LOL

it's like someone once said, "the reason why wars are so easily started
is that it is not difficult to find sheep to follow you off the cliff"
...just get everyone who has a fb a/c

So has anyone contacted an agency or filed a DMCA takedown yet?

Where's the fun in that?

Quote from: Chichikov on July 31, 2016, 06:57

"15.2:
...Thus, to minimize exposure for contributory copyright infringement, websites should (a) try to reduce actual knowledge of user-generated content by not monitoring their services..."

This is their attitude, they wont check the content. They literally don't want to know because knowing would open them up to being sued. They will only respond to the actual copyright holder.

They may not want to know but if you have notified them and they have responded to you does that not mean they are now aware and by refusing to do anything about it are substantially participatiing as per the corporate law quote by chichikov:

once a website receives notice that a user is committing infringement, the website will be deemed to be substantially participating in the infringement if it does not remove the infringement within a reasonable period of time.

Agencies allow downloading watermarked images so they don't care about this. Maybe that needs to change too.