MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: What's the limit of stolen images to be shut down??? fritzkocher issue  (Read 29166 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: October 05, 2009, 15:22 »
0
Hey Click! Actually I've been a contributor for a while now - long enough to know how these things work and happen to have a career before MS that is relevant to the subject as well ;)

Actually I'm talking about people potentially suing the agencies not the fraudulent contributor - I realise these people are hard to track down, and its not really my point. An agency is allowed to host our images because we grant them a license to do so.

In the event that the host a photographer's work without authorisation from a fraudulent contributor and receive license payments for that, then they're actually in breach of copyright themselves. In this situation they would still be liable to the copyright owner for any profits that they have collected from the unauthorised use of the copyright holders work, but its unlikely that they'd have to fork up major damages.

If this happens innocently and the agency takes steps to fix the problem they have a defense to the breach of copyright that would hold up in most jurisdictions. If they don't take adequate steps, then they're potentially opening up a can of worms for themselves.

You may think its unlikely that an agency would get sued - but what happens if the copyrighted material happens to be part of an exclusive collection held by - say Getty or Corbis - or a high profile RM photographer?

I do appreciate your experience in the field but I have some questions:

Many of my images have been used for stuff like this and I shut down a LOT of people who tried to screw me.

Now what you're saying sounds like I could sue all the agencies this has happened to me before?

I've registered copyright to all my images does that increase my chances of making such claims?

If so, most agencies would be out of business right now if just I had pursued damages of my stolen images from them.

I think we also signed our right away to claim such damages because of "unknowing"  circumstances - which could be like that EVERY single time it happens.

That's why I suggested using Tineye.

Now, furthermore, while I understand that a "high profile photographer" most likely has a higher amount of damages to claim, I wonder why we are not entitled to the same rights of ownership?

I've heard of cases here and then what happened to photographers trying to screw each other (Getty related). Lots of damages had to be paid.

But here we are playing on a different field. Low commissions and many idiots trying to screw us.

The other day a suggestion came up that every account should have a minimum balance of $3000 or so before the first payout is made. Those $3000 stay in the account until you close your account with them and then get the rest paid out when you leave. So in case you're one of the idiots screwing other people, at least some damages can be paid to the original copyright owners out of court.

All this stuff is never going to make it to court.

I'm in the middle of suing a printing company in the US for selling my images without a license and claiming copyright.

I'm 100% on the legal side of this and yet the lawyer expressed concerns that this is not even going to hold up in court as the owner only has to claim "he didn't know". Our images that are cheap and widely spread all over the planet are easy to retrieve from many sources at any given time.

Hell I've seen my images as backgrounds for ebay auctions and those people just told me: I downloaded it from Google - I didn't know.
What do you do then? Then it's up to you to prove that they DID know... Good luck on that one.

That's why only Nike sues a shoe manufacturer that manufactured 5 million or their mist successful shoes without a license because the economic damage goes into the double or triple digit millions.

This is a topic you only want to think about for a few minutes - if you do it any longer you'll just get too upset. I'm off shooting.


« Reply #26 on: October 05, 2009, 16:38 »
0

A plain copy is easy to spot, the problem with edited material however is that one can claim rights if the change is significant, isn't it? "Significant" is a very subjective thing.

I don't think that the upload terms of any of the sites permit copyrighted content (where the uploader isn't the copyrightholder of the source) as part of the work.

However look at the derivative work (one of them) on FT

http://us.fotolia.com/id/8170097

and the original

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-306242-jack-o-lantern.php

There is a clipping path included in the file so sticking it on a rather low quality background hardly qualifies as "significant" in my book. I'm not sure how anyone could begin to argue the change was significant...

« Reply #27 on: October 05, 2009, 18:06 »
0
I can understand why you're upset.

Unfortunately I can't give you specific advice on your situation without knowing exact details and in any case I'm from Australia (not that I'm there now!) which as very different rules and practices that are often better for photographers than the US. Probably a question you'd have to ask a properly qualified lawyer in the states if that's where you live.

In general ignorance of the law isn't a defense to a claim for breach of copyright - and I'd be surprised if it was in the US. In many jurisdictions there is generally a defense available in terms of a breach of copyright - or at least an excuse that would be significant in mitigating damages - to say that a party was ignorant of the existence, in this case due to the fact that someone else has fraudulently (or innocently) claimed copyright on the work. That said if you establish your own copyright, notify the party of that claim and they don't take appropriate actions, they can't seriously rely on such a defense. If they have profited from the breach of copyright, the original owner of the copyright should at the very minimum be entitled to an account of profits.

My comments were more about the need for agencies to take steps to mitigate their own liability, more so than to encourage contributors to take legal action if they don't have the necessary resources. The reality is that they're a bigger target for litigation due to the fact that they have stable registered addresses and presumably much deeper pockets.

The examples I gave were more about likely sources of litigation - not so much about assessing the value of damages etc.. I just think its more likely that a photographer who doesn't submit to microstock and hates the model is far more likely to sue than someone trying to earn an income this way.

« Reply #28 on: October 05, 2009, 19:05 »
0
I'll go ahead and be the odd man out on this one...

This thread is a perfect example of why IP laws just don't work - the real solution is to just keep on moving and out perform / out pace the leeches, and increase enforcement of license agreements that stipulate you can't transfer the images to others, but thats about it. I remember Yuri complaining about people ripping him off, and as far as I know, he took the smart free market road - out pace and out perform - and in the end his loyal buyers won the riches of his efforts.

By the way, it's really hard to pursue 3rd parties who never entered into any written agreements with the agencies, its almost like trying to sue someone who found a copy of a DVD in a dumpster and claimed it for themselves. Seriously, that is actually one of the core arguments against the very idea of IP laws. Licensing between two parties is one thing, so is blatant theft (hacking into a site and taking images for example), but when someone recieves images who neither stole them or entered into formal written agreements is actually very hard to go after, nor very economical.

Last, but not least, the great irony of IP law is that whenever we feel like an "idea victim" - we love IP law, but when our images come under scrutiny because of some generic props shape being protected - we scream bloody murder. Moral of the story, you simply can't own ideas. Even the ideas you think you originated, are built on top of others ideas - which is a long way of saying "derivative works".

Times change, so do industries. I no longer look at myself as selling images anymore, but rather I get a download commission from an agency that is really selling... access to a superior image search and download mechanism.

Getting ripped off sucks, but hey, at least you know your doing something right - thats only reason they'd be doing it - now go out there beat'em into the ground ;)

Just my 2 cents.

« Reply #29 on: October 05, 2009, 19:52 »
0
Aside from the stealing issue, that is some of the cheesiest Photoshop work I've seen.

« Reply #30 on: October 05, 2009, 20:24 »
0
There is a clipping path included in the file so sticking it on a rather low quality background hardly qualifies as "significant" in my book. I'm not sure how anyone could begin to argue the change was significant...

I don't agree it's significant, but the infractor could say he thought it was different enough and get away with it... Quite different from simply reuploading other people's material, and surely not an excuse if he did the latter. 

« Reply #31 on: October 05, 2009, 21:54 »
0
I can't believe that any contributor who (a) can read and (b) has any ethical sense (not to mention more than rudimentary Photoshop skills) could possibly do what this person has done. He has built a portfolio on other people's work and apparently received only a slap on the wrist for doing so.

The fact that some people think it's OK - or not all that bad - leaves me gobsmacked. The file of mine is old and not a great seller, so I don't really have a lot of skin in the game, but I am furious that someone would be that sleazy  and that the agencies would let this continue.

I can only hope that iStock's compliance enforcement will help them see the error of their ways. Otherwise the agencies and anyone who lifts other people's content win, and only the contributor whose content is swiped is the loser. Totally unjust.

I contacted Fotolia again just a few minutes ago as I have heard nothing from them after a business day has passed and the content is still live on their site.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2009, 22:09 by jsnover »

« Reply #32 on: October 05, 2009, 22:10 »
0
Aside from the stealing issue, that is some of the cheesiest Photoshop work I've seen.

Frankly, it sucks.

Mostly the ripped off images were creating the majority of his income.

There seem to be quite a bunch of images where he "tried" to create something artistic but it's basically falling into the category "Photoshop fail".

This however is a great example to show that his bestsellers couldn't come from him as the rest just flat out sucks.

« Reply #33 on: October 05, 2009, 22:31 »
0

Getting ripped off sucks, but hey, at least you know your doing something right - thats only reason they'd be doing it - now go out there beat'em into the ground ;)

Just my 2 cents.

Interesting point of view. I agree with some of it from the side of a photographer, but when it comes to the agency there should be no question what they should do with a guy like our Californian friend Andy Kocher (fritzkocher). There used to be a time where an ethic code excisted amoungst business partners. They have ANY means to just kick him out, even without giving him a chance to argue about it. Every agency can end our contracts at any time. So why don't they in his case?

btw, found another definitely stoen picture, I checked zooms of both in Photoshop. See for yourself....
newbielink:http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-420932-lady-liberty-up-close-and-personal-another-view.php [nonactive]
fritzkocher\'s remake: newbielink:http://www.123rf.com/photo_5218655.html [nonactive]

and the beat goes on.... 

helix7

« Reply #34 on: October 05, 2009, 23:40 »
0
Aside from the stealing issue, that is some of the cheesiest Photoshop work I've seen.

Exactly what I was thinking. Everyone seems amazed that this guy keeps getting away with selling compositions created from stolen images, but I'm even more amazed that he gets this junk accepted at any agency.


zymmetricaldotcom

« Reply #35 on: October 06, 2009, 03:15 »
0
You already are halfway there- what about  Leaf creating a forum section on MSG specifically for reporting possible infringements, with a nice big legal disclaimer on top that any "outings" are purely opinions of MSG members.  I would only worry about people who have been caught out focusing on MSG for revenge - but if you are going to be naming ports and giving links here anyhow, it might as well be organized.  If implemented effectively then it may get enough publicity to act as a deterrent - I think the thiefs rely on the lack on cohesion between agencies and a community report system (like the Vegas card counter system mentioned) would have a real effect.  

Keep it in a simple format - one legit version of the image, and one link to hacked/appropriated version, and a short bit of evidence as to how you know which is the legit version.

With enough momentum maybe it could be turned into a subscription service that the agencies can pay for access too. ;)     This kind of problem is currently not able to be solved by image recognition technology alone, the artist's brain can process their entire portfolio in a second with much more intuitive results - and you are the bees buzzing between agencies so you see a broader perspective of images than an individual agency business unit.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2009, 03:17 by zymmetrical »

alias

« Reply #36 on: October 06, 2009, 03:39 »
0
In this case it would be interesting to find examples of the altered images in use and take the matter to the buyers. Buyers should be discouraged from using these same few sites which continually create these issues.

Agencies should indemnify the buyers against using stolen images. Buyers encouraged by PR and soft propaganda to only use agencies which provide that level of guarantee. I think that part of that guarantee should be about photographers lodging a significant proportion of their typical earnings at the agency more or less as a deposit or bond. I believe that this would discourage the easy come, easy go attitude.

« Reply #37 on: October 06, 2009, 05:22 »
0
You already are halfway there- what about  Leaf creating a forum section on MSG specifically for reporting possible infringements, with a nice big legal disclaimer on top that any "outings" are purely opinions of MSG members.  I would only worry about people who have been caught out focusing on MSG for revenge - but if you are going to be naming ports and giving links here anyhow, it might as well be organized.  If implemented effectively then it may get enough publicity to act as a deterrent - I think the thiefs rely on the lack on cohesion between agencies and a community report system (like the Vegas card counter system mentioned) would have a real effect.  

Keep it in a simple format - one legit version of the image, and one link to hacked/appropriated version, and a short bit of evidence as to how you know which is the legit version.

With enough momentum maybe it could be turned into a subscription service that the agencies can pay for access too. ;)     This kind of problem is currently not able to be solved by image recognition technology alone, the artist's brain can process their entire portfolio in a second with much more intuitive results - and you are the bees buzzing between agencies so you see a broader perspective of images than an individual agency business unit.


That's a very good idea Zymm. Take a Heart!

« Reply #38 on: October 06, 2009, 06:41 »
0
So far Fritzkocher has had his portfolios deleted at SS, DT and 123. It just seems to be Fotolia that are slow in taking action.

Here's 'his' African elephant at FT;

http://en.fotolia.com/id/6721559

... and here's where he 'shot' it  

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2876587-african-elephant-amboseli-kenya.php

Why bother going to Kenya when you can do all your photography on the internet?
« Last Edit: October 06, 2009, 06:49 by gostwyck »

« Reply #39 on: October 06, 2009, 06:49 »
0
He didn't steal my work, but maybe you should also check/contact cafepress....

http://www.cafepress.com/fritzkocher

also on Bigstock his portfolio is still around...

« Reply #40 on: October 06, 2009, 07:03 »
0
He didn't steal my work, but maybe you should also check/contact cafepress....

http://www.cafepress.com/fritzkocher

also on Bigstock his portfolio is still around...


I think it's a good idea to have a separate section of MSG dedicated to identify thieves.

My friend and I have been reporting this guy to 4 agencies. At this point I'm tired of writing any other agency - especially since two of them hesitantly re-activated his account for some mysterious reasons (and deactivated it a second time again...).

I hope the copyright owners who are involved in this did everything necessary to get the rest of his junk removed asap.

« Reply #41 on: October 06, 2009, 07:11 »
0
Once agencies are aware of the problem, I don't see a reason for them not to shut the account, or at least block if for further investigation.  Reinstating the account of a clear thief makes no sense at all.

« Reply #42 on: October 06, 2009, 07:30 »
0
Here a few more pages with his trash:

Tattoos by fritzkocher:
http://www.squidoo.com/yin-yang-tattoos-

Oh boy:
http://www.canstockphoto.com/stock-image-portfolio/fritzkocher

And here we go again:
http://www.imagetrail.net/artist/2000457258/fritzkocher

http://www.pixmac.com.br/author/fritzkocher

http://www.imagecatalog.com/photographer_profile.php?pID=1987

http://www.artiloo.com/images_libres/2_200590067_fritzkocher.html


His stolen images in use:

http://blog.reisen-experten.de/pics/freiheitsstatue-usa

Alfred Hitchcocks Mystery Magazine [v 54 # 5, May 2009] ed. Linda Landrigan (Dell Magazines, A Division of Crosstown Publications; New York, Peter Kanter Publisher; $4.99, 112pp, 5" x 8" s/b, cover by Fritz Kocher & Shutterstock.com) [Douglas G. Greene]
http://www.philsp.com/data/images/a/alfred_hitchcocks_mystery_200905.jpg

Page 3
http://www.americamagazine.org/images/pdfs/721.pdf


I'm out.

« Reply #43 on: October 06, 2009, 09:02 »
0
Looks like Fotolia have shut down fritzkocher's account too now. Good.

What an idiot. He describes himself as a designer so should have known much better and it's bizarre that he thought he could get away with it. Mind you he did manage to sell over 14K licenses at SS as well as having several other microstock accounts so he did make a few thousand $'s before he got caught.

Here he is on the SS forums;

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/search.php?search_author=fritzkocher%40hotmail.

« Reply #44 on: October 06, 2009, 09:08 »
0
It is beyond me how he could possibly be active on the SS forums and never get caught!!!

My buddy who caught him first last week, found one image totally by accident.

To steal someone's images and sell them is bad enough and absolutely wrong.

But to brag about sales figures based on stolen images is totally ruthless.

How can this guy live with himself???

He's like a stock image terrorist or something.

« Reply #45 on: October 06, 2009, 10:20 »
0
I thought this post of his on the SS forum was particularly funny:

Hi there guys.....well I live in Auburn which is close to Sacramento, CA and im looking for a fun photographer to go out and about with to take some shots....maybe feed off of each other, maybe give e ...

« Reply #46 on: October 06, 2009, 10:44 »
0
I thought this post of his on the SS forum was particularly funny:

Hi there guys.....well I live in Auburn which is close to Sacramento, CA and im looking for a fun photographer to go out and about with to take some shots....maybe feed off of each other, maybe give e ...


I don't know maybe we should give him some points for trying...

« Reply #47 on: October 06, 2009, 10:47 »
0
His stuff is still at StockXpert
http://www.stockxpert.com/browse_image/view/19237401
http://www.stockxpert.com/browse_image/view/21237421

I notified them yesterday and told iStock compliance enforcement too (as a Getty company I thought it might be easier to take the guy out there, but perhaps no).

The reply I received from 123rf said the offending photos had been removed  "...and if you were to do a search on his portfolio, it's no longer there as we've removed it.
We are very strict on this matter and such stealing won't be tolerated." To me that said they were going to leave the rest of his portfolio up; I'm glad they didn't.

I am also glad to see that FT has finally removed his work. I did eventually get what passes for a response from their support organization which told me to forward the information to copyright at fotolia dot com!! Their own support can't pass the information? Certainly seems to me like those organizations that hope if they keep tossing the ball back in your court you'll go away.  I did forward the information and told them they needed to turn over all the revenues from those images to iStock. We'll see what happens :)

iStock has removed his tiny portfolio (14 images) there. Now we just need to make sure he stays out of commission at SS and DT - didn't someone say he'd been suspended before but then allowed back online at both places?

I tried to notify Image Trail, but their contact form is broken and generated an error message "System.Net.Sockets.SocketException: No connection could be made because the target machine actively refused it ::1:25". Not sure what to expect from a site whose help page generates a "not found" error.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2009, 11:04 by jsnover »

« Reply #48 on: October 06, 2009, 11:01 »
0
...iStock has removed his tiny portfolio (14 images) there. Now we just need to make sure he stays out of commission at SS and DT - didn't someone say he'd been suspended before but then allowed back online at both places?

Yes, I said that.

Right after my friend reported him to SS and DT they removed his entire portfolio for investigation.

By "accident" a few days later I saw his portfolio back online at DT and someone here mentioned his portfolio at SS. I'd assumed that SS re-instated his account but I didn't see that for myself.

However, after posting this issue here and contacting all the photographers that we could figure out SS and DT finally removed his stuff.

I can vouch for what I saw at DT:

After he got re-instated some of the copied material was gone - probably removed by DT.

Now two things:

1. This idiot didn't think of disabling all the other files he stole although he "got a second chance" - thank god for his stupidity...

2. DT obviously only investigates reported images and NOT if the thief has more images in his portfolio that are stolen. So the agency ONLY reacts to reports and not on suspicious behavior. That's why I said this is really tough for us photographers since we NEED to find our stolen images because no one else is likely to report them to the agencies. Therefore there won't be any actions taken by the agencies...
« Last Edit: October 06, 2009, 11:03 by click_click »

« Reply #49 on: October 06, 2009, 11:05 »
0
Also, every single time I reported a thief to 123RF they ONLY removed the stolen images but left the portfolio online.

I got a response from 123RF that the first time this happens the account holder gets a warning.

Now suck on that.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
15499 Views
Last post August 14, 2007, 15:28
by fintastique
2 Replies
7466 Views
Last post August 04, 2008, 13:25
by pelmof
15 Replies
10386 Views
Last post July 15, 2009, 00:48
by bittersweet
56 Replies
29931 Views
Last post September 12, 2009, 14:02
by madelaide
4 Replies
4049 Views
Last post March 16, 2020, 13:15
by georgep7

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors