Author Topic: How to turn your copyright infringements into cash (Read 19942 times)

EmberMike · « **Reply #50 on:** August 21, 2012, 10:46 »

I started DMCAing web hosts. I ran into a couple of sites that were repeat offenders, and initially I tried to be nice and just email the site owners asking them to remove my images. One I sent a DMCA to their web host yesterday and by today the site was shut down. Today I'm sending notice to another host. We'll see how that one goes.

Just FYI, these are sites that are redistributing images for free. These aren't bloggers or other uninformed people using a single image on a post or page without knowing that they need to license it. For these Hero Turko wannabes, I'm just sending DMCAs straight to the website hosting companies from now on.

The one I'm sending today the guy really got under my skin. The first time I asked him to remove something he was super apologetic and acting all nice about it, saying that the images were submitted by someone else claiming to be the owner of the content. He took them down right away. Then surprise surprise, a few months later there's more of my stuff up on his site.

Similar story with the other site yesterday. Host kills the site, and sure enough I get a super apologetic email from the guy. He never responds to my emails asking to remove my stuff, but take down his site and all of a sudden he's responsive and apologetic.

Enough already. It's a complete waste of time trying to deal with some of these jokers. DMCAs straight to the host seems to do the trick, as long as the host is based in a country that complies with DMCA requests.

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #51 on:** August 28, 2012, 19:29 »

Things like this are not a simple matter of unauthorized use of an image. It is misrepresentation, or false pretenses if you like, which is a felony, which is obviously criminal. Besides misrepresentation, some instances are also theft, which is obviously also a felony, we should make print screens and file police reports and inform every other authority that likes to know.

Companies like this get take down notices all the time and are used to it. It doesn't solve anything and we should take it one step further.

Poncke · « **Reply #52 on:** August 29, 2012, 04:34 »

How do you know an image was stolen, if it has not watermark, when you submit to 5 sites selling the photo? And how do you know the reseller is not an affilate of one of your agencies? I have been trying to find my photos on the net, but even my best seller is not found using google images.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #53 on:** August 30, 2012, 09:59 »

Quote from: Poncke on August 29, 2012, 04:34

How do you know an image was stolen, if it has not watermark, when you submit to 5 sites selling the photo? And how do you know the reseller is not an affilate of one of your agencies? I have been trying to find my photos on the net, but even my best seller is not found using google images.

I always get a laugh from this question, because you are making such a good point. People with an image on 25 sites, and those sites have 200 affiliates, can't know where it came from.

Like a dog chasing it's tail, when they catch it, now what? When we catch someone using or selling, we don't know and even when we do know, there's nothing to protect us. Oh DMCA, that's scary. I bet the image thieves are shaking in their boots. Lets see, they remove the image and go steal something else. Wow that's a real threatening situation.

Enforceable laws are the only answer. Not empty protection where we have to spend more than we'd collect to stop these people.

Come on, someone who has actually tried to prosecute or charge someone, step up and tell us the facts. No more, fairy tales of "How to turn your copyright infringements into cash" and dreams of big lawsuits.

Some facts and reality would be really welcome. Things like, you can't get an practicing attorney to write a letter for less that $100 most of the time! The laws force us to do the research and get the proof and then bring it to the court. How would that fit if shoplifters were handled the same way?

A large part of the problem, is THE SYSTEM and they don't go after copyright violations.

gillian vann · « **Reply #54 on:** September 18, 2012, 05:12 »

well today I had something funny happen. Was leaving a supermarket that isn't my local, it's near where my girls do music lessons (2 suburbs over). I spotted a flyer on a noticeboard and saw one of my images on it. I had a slight buzz to see it (although I must confess the first time I saw one of my images in use I was fantasising it would be on a bus or something:) and then upon closer inspection saw the watermark.

What dumb luck that out of all the images of 2 girls on a stock sites this mother chose an image of a photographer who lives just round the corner... the usage of the image is a touch sensitive too: it's for a seminar of how images of young girls used in the media to sell things. The pic itself is very sweet so I'm staying calm - yes, they are my girls.

so now what? the seminar is promoting a nationally acclaimed author/speaker who should be mortified when she gets my email. the poor soccer mum who made the flyer clearly has no clue what she's done (why else would you use a watermarked image? there are plenty of unwatermarked ones on google). I'm quite keen to send a polite email explaining her infringement and including an invoice. How much for? any thoughts?

Microbius · « **Reply #55 on:** September 18, 2012, 05:49 »

If I strongly suspect the infringement is through ignorance rather than by someone trying to profit by stealing my work, I tend to just politely let them know the score and ask them to buy the correct license with a link to one of the stock sites (my own site now I have one). How they respond from there determines my next step.

gillian vann · « **Reply #56 on:** September 18, 2012, 06:20 »

thank you. that's my thought process too. no point scaring her off. let her know my image could have been purchased for something like $6, which is not much to avoid future embarrassment. Maybe try to turn her into a future customer for us all.

although I'll just take the straight $6 thanks, and not the pissy .68c comm i'd end up with...

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #57 on:** September 18, 2012, 06:25 »

Ef her she stole it make her pay for it, it is for this reason why people steal them in the first place because they know they can get away with it and no one will do anything about it!

Poncke · « **Reply #58 on:** September 18, 2012, 13:07 »

The majority has no clue about copyrights.

fotografer · « **Reply #59 on:** September 18, 2012, 13:20 »

Quote from: Poncke on September 18, 2012, 13:07

The majority has no clue about copyrights.

I agree. I had no idea about copyright before I started stock photography and nor do most people that I talk to about it. The asumption is that if it's there on google then it is there for the taking.

gillian vann · « **Reply #60 on:** September 18, 2012, 17:05 »

which is exactly what she said to me in her email this morning:
"I was unaware of the watermark issue and copyright/buying issue in using images from google, so I have learnt something important. "

It seems Google, as the enabler, should really have a warning there, as surely we can also go after google?

anyway, I offered her a very reasonable price (she's a school chaplain, too much bad karma in being greedy) and she has apologised and agreed to pay. I'm happy.

loop · « **Reply #61 on:** September 18, 2012, 17:14 »

Quote from: cclapper on August 19, 2012, 20:22

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on August 18, 2012, 18:18
Quote from: qwerty on August 18, 2012, 17:43
Spending to much time on this doesn't add up $ wise. I'd just send the takedown notice with a link on where to buy it if they want to keep using the image.

My time would be better off submitting more images than chasing $10 here and there.

If IBM or Toyota were using it illegally it might be a different story.

I know the moral of not stealing is really important to other people and go for it if that what is important to you.

Part of the problem is ignorance (don't know they're stealing) and also arrogance (know but don't care - "so I stole your pic, what'r you gonna do about it?").

If more photographers went after infringers word would spread and theft would likely decrease. Saying "oh well, let them steal" is indirectly encouraging theft.

Agree.

As far as time goes, I consider it a part of doing business, just like making accounts receivable calls, or follow-up sales calls. If each contributor spent an hour or two a week looking for infringers and sending DMCAs, it would go a long way towards spreading the word and educating people.

Agree. Think global, act local.

click_click · « **Reply #62 on:** September 18, 2012, 17:35 »

Quote from: vannphoto on September 18, 2012, 17:05

...
It seems Google, as the enabler, should really have a warning there, as surely we can also go after google?
...

Do you really think that Google's attorneys would have missed this issue?

On every page when you enlarge an image within the Google Image search there is a disclaimer on the right:
Images may be subject to copyright.

That's about as much of a warning like on the stock sites regarding copyright education. I think this small disclaimer releases Google from any copyright claims.

If you will, you could compare Google to Heroturko and the likes because they don't host the files, they just link to them plus they make you aware that you may not have the rights to these files.

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #63 on:** September 18, 2012, 18:51 »

Quote from: click_click on September 18, 2012, 17:35

Quote from: vannphoto on September 18, 2012, 17:05
...
It seems Google, as the enabler, should really have a warning there, as surely we can also go after google?
...

Do you really think that Google's attorneys would have missed this issue?

On every page when you enlarge an image within the Google Image search there is a disclaimer on the right:
Images may be subject to copyright.

That's about as much of a warning like on the stock sites regarding copyright education. I think this small disclaimer releases Google from any copyright claims.

If you will, you could compare Google to Heroturko and the likes because they don't host the files, they just link to them plus they make you aware that you may not have the rights to these files.

True they let you know they may be copyrighted so then they steal them anyhow so they know or knew about it being copyrighted and completly disregard any of it and play dumb and everyone goes!

Oh well since you didn't know about it i can let it go!

And you wonder why people steal them?

Go figure.

Everyone was taught about copyright in School.

click_click · « **Reply #64 on:** September 18, 2012, 20:21 »

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on September 18, 2012, 18:51

... Everyone was taught about copyright in School.

I wasn't. In Germany we have some pretty strict copyright laws and they are easily enforced compared to other countries but we are not taught copyright in school.

We may get taught not to plagiarize and to be "honest" about your work but that's about it.

Sometimes though copyright can be compared to using common sense especially when agencies or even individual graphic designers use our images because they believe the images are so good that they help promote their advertised products or services but don't think for two cents that good imagery does cost money (even if it's just the cost to produce the image...).

Do these people seriously believe that there are photographers and illustrators out there that have nothing better to do than toss their images into the Google Image search for everyone free to use? Seriously?

I could go on...

Poncke · « **Reply #65 on:** September 19, 2012, 01:26 »

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on September 18, 2012, 18:51

Quote from: click_click on September 18, 2012, 17:35
Quote from: vannphoto on September 18, 2012, 17:05
...
It seems Google, as the enabler, should really have a warning there, as surely we can also go after google?
...

Do you really think that Google's attorneys would have missed this issue?

On every page when you enlarge an image within the Google Image search there is a disclaimer on the right:
Images may be subject to copyright.

That's about as much of a warning like on the stock sites regarding copyright education. I think this small disclaimer releases Google from any copyright claims.

If you will, you could compare Google to Heroturko and the likes because they don't host the files, they just link to them plus they make you aware that you may not have the rights to these files.
True they let you know they may be copyrighted so then they steal them anyhow so they know or knew about it being copyrighted and completly disregard any of it and play dumb and everyone goes!

Oh well since you didn't know about it i can let it go!

And you wonder why people steal them?

Go figure.

Everyone was taught about copyright in School.

? I wasnt. I was taught what the word meant, but that doesnt mean I knew where and how its a applied. And even if you were taught in school, that doesnt mean you know exactly what on the internet is copyrighted or not. There are also loads of public domain photos without copyright, for layman to tell the difference, is not as easy as you think it is.

gillian vann · « **Reply #66 on:** September 19, 2012, 05:33 »

ah yes, I do now see the "warning" although it could do with being in bold and that font size you've used to show us. Even those of us who are aware of such things didn't see the "warning". It's hardly a warning, and certainly not on the first page. That "warning" only shows up when you click an image.

The use of the word "may" is so iffy. I'd suggest they ALL are subject to copyright and you need to determine just what that means. Even if it's just someone's boring snapshots there is still copyright on those images.

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #67 on:** September 19, 2012, 07:05 »

Don't come up with dumb excuses for peoples stupidity!

They can read as well as you and I can.

Quote

I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:

You are free:

to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
to remix – to adapt the work

Under the following conditions:

attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
share alike – If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.

Poncke · « **Reply #68 on:** September 19, 2012, 12:11 »

Stupidity and ignorance are different things Rux.

Ignorance is distinguished from stupidity, although both can lead to "unwise" acts.

gillian vann · « **Reply #69 on:** September 26, 2012, 20:05 »

I've just made myself unpopular in a forum (of photographers!!!) for pointing out that google images aren't free.
"oh, I search for royalty free on google and use those", a number chimed in saying it was ok and there was no copyright on those found on Google. No one noticed the copyright warning, or they assumed it didn't apply.

so then I had to further explain that RF doesn't mean "free to take from google".
Just waiting for my warning to come from the mods.
I was very polite but it was me V a bunch of soccer mums.

*no offence to soccer mums who think they are photographers (ok, well, a LITTLE). disclaimer: Some of my besties are soccer mums.*

Leo Blanchette · « **Reply #70 on:** September 26, 2012, 20:31 »

In the history of microstock, has there ever been a legally enforced image violation?

pancaketom · « **Reply #71 on:** September 27, 2012, 12:59 »

Quote from: KonaHawaii on September 26, 2012, 20:31

In the history of microstock, has there ever been a legally enforced image violation?

I got paid a fatter than usual EL from SS after they found a calendar company using images w/o paying for ELs and went after them.

click_click · « **Reply #72 on:** September 27, 2012, 18:02 »

Quote from: pancaketom on September 27, 2012, 12:59

Quote from: KonaHawaii on September 26, 2012, 20:31
In the history of microstock, has there ever been a legally enforced image violation?

I got paid a fatter than usual EL from SS after they found a calendar company using images w/o paying for ELs and went after them.

Yes, I remember this single lifetime event. Was nice to get compensated after the fact but haven't experienced anything like that ever since (which doesn't mean it didn't happen).

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: How to turn your copyright infringements into cash (Read 19942 times)

EmberMike

ruxpriencdiam

Poncke

RacePhoto

gillian vann

Microbius

gillian vann

ruxpriencdiam

Poncke

fotografer

gillian vann

loop

click_click

ruxpriencdiam

click_click

Poncke

gillian vann

ruxpriencdiam

Poncke

gillian vann

Leo Blanchette

pancaketom

click_click

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors