Author Topic: Is it ok to expose copyright infringement cases on my blog? (Read 17294 times)

click_click · « **on:** May 17, 2010, 18:41 »

Well, what do you think about this:

I keep seeing my best seller all over the internet being abused for things I never received the royalties for.

Do you think it's ok for me to post screen shots of companies using my image without a license on my blog to show everyone online (possibly their clients) their business ethics?

Of course I would only do so after the respective web hosting company has determined that the company in question has indeed violated their terms of services by not presenting a usage license (which I always demand even BEFORE contacting the web host!).

The last 3 times the company owners/admins didn't even bother to reply to my emails. $:-\$

Digital66 · « **Reply #1 on:** May 17, 2010, 19:55 »

Quote from: click_click on May 17, 2010, 18:41

Of course I would only do so after the respective web hosting company has determined that the company in question has indeed violated their terms of services by not presenting a usage license (which I always demand even BEFORE contacting the web host!).

A usage license? A year ago I bought a license from BS and some others from 123RF for a website I designed. But all I got were the images. Never a License usage document. I don't even remember if I ever received a receipt or something.

click_click · « **Reply #2 on:** May 17, 2010, 20:21 »

Well naturally the agency will let you download the image which is all you pretty much get, besides a receipt for your purchase of credits/a subscription.

Don't tell me there is no "paper trail" to confirm that a buyer actually registered, paid and downloaded the image.

That would be more than concerning...

Digital66 · « **Reply #3 on:** May 17, 2010, 21:09 »

Quote from: click_click on May 17, 2010, 20:21

Well naturally the agency will let you download the image which is all you pretty much get, besides a receipt for your purchase of credits/a subscription.

Don't tell me there is no "paper trail" to confirm that a buyer actually registered, paid and downloaded the image.

That would be more than concerning...

There is a receipt but just for the credits you have bought (I found the one from BS). Not a receipt for the license of an specific image. And at the download history, it's only the thumbnails of images you have downloaded. It would be a good idea if buyers could also get a license usage document for any specific image they have downloaded.

crazychristina · « **Reply #4 on:** May 17, 2010, 21:23 »

If a designer purchases an image presumably they can use it for any sites they design. The site owners won't have any evidence of legitimate use. (I'm not a designer so perhaps this is not how it works, but aren't most image licenses non-transferable, meaning a designer can't transfer the license to the customer?)

elvinstar · « **Reply #5 on:** May 17, 2010, 23:03 »

It's my understanding that you have to buy a new license for each website if you would like to use the same image for more than one project.

I could be wrong though.

Digital66 · « **Reply #6 on:** May 17, 2010, 23:09 »

Providing evidence of legitimate use is not always easy or possible. So, accusing someone of using an image without license is very complicated. It's different when there is a specific infringement like an image bigger than 800x600 in a website, etc.

When I find one of my images being used in a website, I don't contact the owner/administrator to confirm whether they have a license or not. I feel it would be too annoying. I just hope and trust they have bought the license. I only contact if there is a specific infringement.

Digital66 · « **Reply #7 on:** May 17, 2010, 23:36 »

Quote from: elvinstar on May 17, 2010, 23:03

It's my understanding that you have to buy a new license for each website if you would like to use the same image for more than one project.

I could be wrong though.

I think a designer can use one single license for more than one client. I think that's what I read at DT and SS. Maybe I am wrong.

This would be why many website owners can't provide any evidence of legitimate use of an image.

hoi ha · « **Reply #8 on:** May 18, 2010, 00:29 »

Quote from: Digital66 on May 17, 2010, 23:09

Providing evidence of legitimate use is not always easy or possible. So, accusing someone of using an image without license is very complicated. It's different when there is a specific infringement like an image bigger than 800x600 in a website, etc.

When I find one of my images being used in a website, I don't contact the owner/administrator to confirm whether they have a license or not. I feel it would be too annoying. I just hope and trust they have bought the license. I only contact if there is a specific infringement.

I think Digital66 is probably correct here - it is not easy to make a determination as to whether an image has been licensed from a micro site - and if you call a company out on your web site, and you are wrong, you may be opening yourself up to a libel suit.

Even Getty, with all of its resources, has gotten into trouble for this - they sent a threatening letter to a user saying they were violating Getty's copyright and in the end, after going to court, Getty was wrong - they had a perfectly legal license from a different source ... and Getty is now under investigation by several governments for using these "letters" ... so it can be very tricky indeed.

Fran · « **Reply #9 on:** May 18, 2010, 03:40 »

Quote from: elvinstar on May 17, 2010, 23:03

It's my understanding that you have to buy a new license for each website if you would like to use the same image for more than one project.

I could be wrong though.

The license is Royalty Free and for perpetual use.

click_click · « **Reply #10 on:** May 18, 2010, 06:02 »

I'm not asking for proof of a license for every picture I see the belongs to me.

I'm talking about bigger cases where companies are selling iPod skins with my picture on them or mousepads, posters, clothes or car decals.

Those mostly require an EL license. I think it's quite fair to knock on those people's doors to ask where they got my images.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #11 on:** May 18, 2010, 06:23 »

Quote from: elvinstar on May 17, 2010, 23:03

It's my understanding that you have to buy a new license for each website if you would like to use the same image for more than one project.

I could be wrong though.

Yeah, you're definitely wrong.

fullvalue · « **Reply #12 on:** May 18, 2010, 07:15 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 18, 2010, 06:23

Quote from: elvinstar on May 17, 2010, 23:03
It's my understanding that you have to buy a new license for each website if you would like to use the same image for more than one project.

I could be wrong though.

Yeah, you're definitely wrong.

Yep. Maybe contributing photographers should take the time to read the usage agreement.

Although I can't speak for every site, when you down load an image from IS you get a receipt for the download. A good practice is to print out the current usage agreement in force at the time of the license and staple it to the image, although I'll admit I don't always do this step.

I think if I was contacted by a photographer after licensing an image and proof was demanded I'd immediately contact the agency and file a complaint. Who needs that hassle. If you "exposed me" because I refused to give you proof, you'd be talking to my llawyer. What if every RF photographer did this? Obviously you have a problem with the RF model.

click_click · « **Reply #13 on:** May 18, 2010, 07:30 »

Quote from: fullvalue on May 18, 2010, 07:15

...I think if I was contacted by a photographer after licensing an image and proof was demanded I'd immediately contact the agency and file a complaint. Who needs that hassle. If you "exposed me" because I refused to give you proof, you'd be talking to my llawyer. What if every RF photographer did this? Obviously you have a problem with the RF model.

Fullvalue, would you mind explaining this a little more? I seem to have a problem understanding what you are trying to say.

From what you wrote above I understand that you won't tell or show proof to any photographer that contacts you asking where you purchased the image?

So even though you are a paying image user you will not tell the copyright holder of the image that you chose to use, where you purchased the image?

Sorry for repeating myself, I just thought I might have misunderstood you there for a moment.

crazychristina · « **Reply #14 on:** May 18, 2010, 07:39 »

Seems a pretty reasonable attitude to me. After all, if the manufacturer of any item I own demande proof that I had purchased it, and wanted to know where from, I'd consider contacting the police to lay harrassment charges.

fullvalue · « **Reply #15 on:** May 18, 2010, 08:11 »

Quote from: click_click on May 18, 2010, 07:30

Quote from: fullvalue on May 18, 2010, 07:15
...I think if I was contacted by a photographer after licensing an image and proof was demanded I'd immediately contact the agency and file a complaint. Who needs that hassle. If you "exposed me" because I refused to give you proof, you'd be talking to my llawyer. What if every RF photographer did this? Obviously you have a problem with the RF model.

Fullvalue, would you mind explaining this a little more? I seem to have a problem understanding what you are trying to say.

From what you wrote above I understand that you won't tell or show proof to any photographer that contacts you asking where you purchased the image?

So even though you are a paying image user you will not tell the copyright holder of the image that you chose to use, where you purchased the image?

Sorry for repeating myself, I just thought I might have misunderstood you there for a moment.

Let's say I design a website that uses 6 images. Do I need to provide proof now to 6 photographers?

Also, don't forget, I licesned the images from a third party. My contract is with them. The photographer's contract is with them. I don't have a contract with the photographer. They have no reason to contact me. If they have a problem they need to contact the third party.

Eyedesign · « **Reply #16 on:** May 18, 2010, 08:11 »

Quote from: click_click on May 18, 2010, 07:30

Quote from: fullvalue on May 18, 2010, 07:15
...I think if I was contacted by a photographer after licensing an image and proof was demanded I'd immediately contact the agency and file a complaint. Who needs that hassle. If you "exposed me" because I refused to give you proof, you'd be talking to my llawyer. What if every RF photographer did this? Obviously you have a problem with the RF model.

Fullvalue, would you mind explaining this a little more? I seem to have a problem understanding what you are trying to say.

From what you wrote above I understand that you won't tell or show proof to any photographer that contacts you asking where you purchased the image?

So even though you are a paying image user you will not tell the copyright holder of the image that you chose to use, where you purchased the image?

Sorry for repeating myself, I just thought I might have misunderstood you there for a moment.

I think I'd have to agree with fullvalue. If I started getting calls from photographers asking for this info I'd tell them to go piss up a rope.

click_click · « **Reply #17 on:** May 18, 2010, 08:28 »

Wait wait wait!

Sorry to everyone - I worded this all wrong! I apologize.

I did not mean to browse the internet all day long asking for ALL images licenses ever sold!!!! I hope this is clear now to everyone.

I'm only talking about image uses that require an EL!

Now, am I just the only one who cares who legally purchases an image license of my images or do you guys plan on uploading your stuff to rapidshare yourself anytime soon without telling me?

I did recover damages from people who have not purchased my images/licenses. This only happened because I opened my mouth.

So you averil and fullvalue simply do not care if anyone would download your images whichever way illegally printing them on books, posters, clothing and what not and you would completely ignore that?

Why even sell your images if you don't want to make money off of it?

For the record: I have no intent to harrass buyers if they use my image on a website, blog, book etc.

Kone · « **Reply #18 on:** May 18, 2010, 08:34 »

Quote from: click_click on May 18, 2010, 08:28

Now, am I just the only one who cares who legally purchases an image license of my images or do you guys plan on uploading your stuff to rapidshare yourself anytime soon without telling me?

NO, I am with you

click_click · « **Reply #19 on:** May 18, 2010, 08:45 »

Quote from: fullvalue on May 18, 2010, 08:11

...Let's say I design a website that uses 6 images. Do I need to provide proof now to 6 photographers?

Of course not - I don't care for web sites using my images 400 pixels wide.

Quote

Also, don't forget, I licesned the images from a third party. My contract is with them. The photographer's contract is with them. I don't have a contract with the photographer. They have no reason to contact me. If they have a problem they need to contact the third party.

So some of us are contributing to 10, 15 or more agencies. So if we have reason to believe that a company is reproducing/reselling our images we are supposed to write an email to all agencies trying to figure out who sold it to that company (sometimes the agencies don't even know because they sold it to the designer and not the actual company) or me contacting the company directly, verifying if they acquired the appropriate license for it.

And also, are you saying that I as the copyright holder can not make a claim? Are you saying that I can only contact the infringing party with a lawyer? What reason is there to not settle such a situation directly between the copyright holder and the image user?

Since when do our agents do this for us? Why would I contact any agency if I knew the infringing party got it through them if they won't even provide a lawyer for me in that case, not to mention the monetary compensation in case of a settlement.

I only remember one time where a company bought images from Shutterstock through subscription instead of purchasing ELs. They printed that stuff which was against the regular RF license. After investigation the infringing company did pay Shutterstock the necessary license fees which Shutterstock handed down to the contributors.

Still, we all don't know if they also paid a fine for breaking the licensing terms and if everybody was actually compensated who was affected there.

Many times, I found my images on other photographers' accounts at the micros who stole them and did resell them as their own. Not one time did I receive the royalties for all those sales which should have occurred on my account. Mind also that these are our agents who wouldn't be in business if it wasn't for our images. Therefore, I don't expect our agents to act as a legal extension of our copyright. I have to defend my copyright.

cthoman · « **Reply #20 on:** May 18, 2010, 09:08 »

I contacted a buyer that was using my image without an EL to remove the product from their Etsy store. They claimed that they always buy EL's and that mine must have accidentally been purchased, but they did take it down. I don't see a problem with harassing people that you know are violating the licensing agreement.

fullvalue · « **Reply #21 on:** May 18, 2010, 09:19 »

click_click- A photographer reselling an image as their own is a violation of copyright regardless of where it was licensed it but that wasn't the original parameter for this thread.

I'm all for protecting copyright but be careful how you do it. I still maintain that if I legally license an image and am using it within the guidelines of the license, I have no obligation to produce documentation to the photographer proving that I am doing so. I would contact the agency that I licensed it from and make a complaint. Furthermore if a false allegation was made on a blog damaging my brand I would pursue legal action.

As for ELs, have you carefully read the user agreements on all the sites you contribute to? Several of them allow usage that would be considered EL by some sites.

cathyslife · « **Reply #22 on:** May 18, 2010, 09:23 »

Quote from: cthoman on May 18, 2010, 09:08

I contacted a buyer that was using my image without an EL to remove the product from their Etsy store. They claimed that they always buy EL's and that mine must have accidentally been purchased, but they did take it down. I don't see a problem with harassing people that you know are violating the licensing agreement.

I think the key words are "harassing people that you know are violating..." If you can totally prove that someone is using an image illegally and can back it up with all the right paperwork/licenses/websites/proof of your copyright, then I totally agree.

click_click · « **Reply #23 on:** May 18, 2010, 09:32 »

Quote from: cclapper on May 18, 2010, 09:23

I think the key words are "harassing people that you know are violating..."

Thanks cclapper, sometimes I should just write it the way I mean it!

I have no intention of publicly exposing people if I wouldn't have proof for their wrongdoing.

youralleffingnuts · « **Reply #24 on:** May 18, 2010, 10:20 »

loop · « **Reply #25 on:** May 18, 2010, 10:35 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 18, 2010, 06:23

Quote from: elvinstar on May 17, 2010, 23:03
It's my understanding that you have to buy a new license for each website if you would like to use the same image for more than one project.

I could be wrong though.

Yeah, you're definitely wrong.

According to what I was told when I contacted IS with the same question time ago, he's fully rigth. If a designer wants to use a lettuce image for a restaurant and for a dieting page, different business, he definitely needs two licenses. Another thing is if this kind of infringement can be effectively enforced.

Adding: Of course, this designer can use the same licencese for the same business as many times as he wants.

Eyedesign · « **Reply #26 on:** May 18, 2010, 10:42 »

Quote from: click_click on May 18, 2010, 08:45

Quote from: fullvalue on May 18, 2010, 08:11
...Let's say I design a website that uses 6 images. Do I need to provide proof now to 6 photographers?

So some of us are contributing to 10, 15 or more agencies. So if we have reason to believe that a company is reproducing/reselling our images we are supposed to write an email to all agencies trying to figure out who sold it to that company (sometimes the agencies don't even know because they sold it to the designer and not the actual company) or me contacting the company directly, verifying if they acquired the appropriate license for it.

Here my suggestion if you're really worried about defending your copyrights, stop uploading to 10 or more agencies.

donding · « **Reply #27 on:** May 18, 2010, 10:46 »

Maybe I don't understand how you go about this....but how would you know rather the site purchased an EL license or not? I have never seen where a stock site tells you who purchases an EL license, just that it was purchased. Maybe I don't know where to look.
But still I think posting it on your blog still may be risky. Personally I would go through the stock site to resolve the problem and if they don't take care of it, I don't know it's worth the risk of getting slapped with slander, or the cost of lawyers to bring suit against them.
I wouldn't like that to happen to me, but can you do anything about it and is the cost to remedy the situation more than you would ever make on the photo?

Digital66 · « **Reply #28 on:** May 18, 2010, 11:06 »

Quote from: Eyedesign on May 18, 2010, 10:42

Quote from: click_click on May 18, 2010, 08:45
Quote from: fullvalue on May 18, 2010, 08:11
...Let's say I design a website that uses 6 images. Do I need to provide proof now to 6 photographers?

So some of us are contributing to 10, 15 or more agencies. So if we have reason to believe that a company is reproducing/reselling our images we are supposed to write an email to all agencies trying to figure out who sold it to that company (sometimes the agencies don't even know because they sold it to the designer and not the actual company) or me contacting the company directly, verifying if they acquired the appropriate license for it.

Here my suggestion if you're really worried about defending your copyrights, stop uploading to 10 or more agencies.

Good point. Defending copyrights and working with many different agencies is practically impossible.

cthoman · « **Reply #29 on:** May 18, 2010, 11:19 »

Quote from: Eyedesign on May 18, 2010, 10:42

Here my suggestion if you're really worried about defending your copyrights, stop uploading to 10 or more agencies.

All it takes is one.

youralleffingnuts · « **Reply #30 on:** May 18, 2010, 11:49 »

donding · « **Reply #31 on:** May 18, 2010, 11:52 »

Quote from: sunnymars on May 18, 2010, 11:49

Quote from: donding on May 18, 2010, 10:46
Maybe I don't understand how you go about this....but how would you know rather the site purchased an EL license or not? I have never seen where a stock site tells you who purchases an EL license, just that it was purchased. Maybe I don't know where to look.

If you have an image that hasn't had any EL licence purchased at all and you find this image being printed on goods sold, that's proof enough. I suspect this is the case with click click.

Thanks for that info, but if there have been several EL's sold on the photo, how do you know that one of them is or isn't for that company unless you contact them or the stock site?

click_click · « **Reply #32 on:** May 18, 2010, 12:56 »

In simple terms - if I have 3 ELs on an image but I see it on sale on 10 different web sites on 10 different products then I have reason to believe that something is fishy.

cathyslife · « **Reply #33 on:** May 18, 2010, 13:00 »

Quote from: click_click on May 18, 2010, 12:56

In simple terms - if I have 3 ELs on an image but I see it on sale on 10 different web sites on 10 different products then I have reason to believe that something is fishy.

Something may be fishy but you will not be able to prove anything. The standard answer for this dilemma is to go exclusive with one company and then you know for sure who has bought what. Not exclusive? You will likely not get the cooperation of the agencies. They typically only take care of their exclusives.

lisafx · « **Reply #34 on:** May 18, 2010, 13:02 »

Quote from: hoi ha on May 18, 2010, 00:29

I think Digital66 is probably correct here - it is not easy to make a determination as to whether an image has been licensed from a micro site - and if you call a company out on your web site, and you are wrong, you may be opening yourself up to a libel suit.

Well said^^.

I don't see how you can be 100% sure it was used illegally, and if you aren't, then you are taking quite a risk accusing them on your blog.

Not to mention the chance that publicly accusing people who use your images of copyright violation might chase away other potential clients. (I know the risk is slight, but still something to consider)

click_click · « **Reply #35 on:** May 18, 2010, 13:19 »

It's funny how companies and designers get away with stealing our images offering them online to the online world illegally which almost makes it sound ok.

But we cannot ask questions or insist of proof of purchase when in doubt?

Ahh, now I get it. You are all lawyers expecting me to pay you lots of money so you can write a cease and desist letter to the company. That makes it all right.

*Note to self: Become lawyer and save fees.*

Again, the point is not to run around like a kid screaming, blindly accusing companies of infringing my copyright. If everyone of you believe that it's not even worth asking questions when it comes to ELs when in doubt more power to you - I did recover lost royalties that way and think it was my right to do so.

lisafx · « **Reply #36 on:** May 18, 2010, 13:30 »

Quote from: click_click on May 18, 2010, 13:19

If everyone of you believe that it's not even worth asking questions when it comes to ELs when in doubt more power to you - I did recover lost royalties that way and think it was my right to do so.

Probably I misunderstood your first post. I didn't realize it was about "asking questions". I had thought it was about publicly accusing companies of violating your copyrights without having any proof they did so. I must have misinterpreted this:

Quote from: click_click on May 17, 2010, 18:41

Do you think it's ok for me to post screen shots of companies using my image without a license on my blog to show everyone online (possibly their clients) their business ethics?

As for asking questions, sure, why not? It would take an awful lot of research going to each site you submit to and finding out who licensed the image and under what terms, but if you have the time to devote to such exhaustive research then that's your prerogative.

On the issue of publicly accusing companies on your blog, without proof, well that would be really really self-destructive, for all the reasons mentioned in this thread.

That's just an opinion - which you did ask for in your OP. Or did I misunderstand that too?

cthoman · « **Reply #37 on:** May 18, 2010, 13:45 »

I think this slander thing is way overblown. You all read the same internet I do, right?

I was thinking of that web comic where a guy is feverishly typing on his keyboard and his wife says, "Honey, are you coming to bed?". He replies, "I can't someone on the internet is WRONG!!!"

Besides there are lots of ways to insinuate someone is doing something wrong without actually accusing them. Just turn on Fox News to see how it's done.

click_click · « **Reply #38 on:** May 18, 2010, 13:50 »

Quote from: lisafx on May 18, 2010, 13:30

Quote from: click_click on May 18, 2010, 13:19

If everyone of you believe that it's not even worth asking questions when it comes to ELs when in doubt more power to you - I did recover lost royalties that way and think it was my right to do so.

Probably I misunderstood your first post. I didn't realize it was about "asking questions". I had thought it was about publicly accusing companies of violating your copyrights without having any proof they did so. I must have misinterpreted this:

Quote from: click_click on May 17, 2010, 18:41

Do you think it's ok for me to post screen shots of companies using my image without a license on my blog to show everyone online (possibly their clients) their business ethics?

As for asking questions, sure, why not? It would take an awful lot of research going to each site you submit to and finding out who licensed the image and under what terms, but if you have the time to devote to such exhaustive research then that's your prerogative.

On the issue of publicly accusing companies on your blog, without proof, well that would be really really self-destructive, for all the reasons mentioned in this thread.

That's just an opinion - which you did ask for in your OP. Or did I misunderstand that too?

Lisa,
I'm having a hard time keeping up to respond to various posts and answers here.

First, I wanted to hear if it's ok to post screen shots of companies that are infringing my copyright. Yes.
I still want to know that.

But quickly the discussion ran into the issue of how I am supposed to determine if it's legally "safe" to do that - or not.

Again, I have to emphasize this:

I do not want to publicly expose companies using my images on their web site.

I do not want to publicly expose companies using my images on products for resale after I had EL licenses sold.

I only wanted to know if you think it is ok to post screen shots of a company who has sold items with my images on there without purchasing a license. Given that I have proof (talking to company owners admitting they failed to purchase the image in the first place or in another way that proofs that the company is not allowed to use the images).

It's technically not really that complicated what I'm asking.

I understand that I would lean myself far out of the window simply posting every web site using one of my images and claiming they stole it.

I have no intention to do so.

I hope this clarifies it a little bit.

ShadySue · « **Reply #39 on:** May 18, 2010, 16:19 »

Quote from: elvinstar on May 17, 2010, 23:03

It's my understanding that you have to buy a new license for each website if you would like to use the same image for more than one project.

I could be wrong though.

Nope, not only can one buyer use it in as many projects, print or digital as they like (that's the whole point of Royalty Free), they seem to be able to syndicate articles to loads of websites. I have a photo which has sold only once and it's accompanying a broadly similar article published across many websites.

madelaide · « **Reply #40 on:** May 18, 2010, 16:37 »

Quote from: Digital66 on May 17, 2010, 19:55

A usage license? A year ago I bought a license from BS and some others from 123RF for a website I designed. But all I got were the images. Never a License usage document. I don't even remember if I ever received a receipt or something.

This is something I always wanted to know. I expected that a buyer would have at least to click somewhere to say he agrees with the license restrictions. Your statement shows that the buyer doesn't need to know anything, and probably he doesn't - even if he had to click, the license terms are always too long, and I'm sure people just click "I agree" or whatever. Do you read the EULA in the software you install?

It's not surprising that images are redistributed, used in PODs and etc. Most people probably he no idea they can not do it - what doesn't make them less guilty, of course.

madelaide · « **Reply #41 on:** May 18, 2010, 16:42 »

Quote from: click_click on May 17, 2010, 18:41

Do you think it's ok for me to post screen shots of companies using my image without a license on my blog to show everyone online (possibly their clients) their business ethics?

I think it's something they deserved, but I am not sure if we can get in trouble by the second part (letting their clients know). To protect yourself, you should get a notary confirm the presence of the image on their website, but then there is a cost to it.

lisafx · « **Reply #42 on:** May 18, 2010, 18:28 »

Quote from: click_click on May 18, 2010, 13:50

I only wanted to know if you think it is ok to post screen shots of a company who has sold items with my images on there without purchasing a license. Given that I have proof (talking to company owners admitting they failed to purchase the image in the first place or in another way that proofs that the company is not allowed to use the images).

(snip)

I hope this clarifies it a little bit.

Yes, it does.

If they admitted they didn't pay for the image then I don't see any harm in publicly shaming them. Would probably also look for a cheap lawyer to send them a letter and maybe a bill too, for the time they have used the image without permission.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #43 on:** May 18, 2010, 21:17 »

Just a couple tidbits.

You will need to be positive before you publish anything that accuses someone of misuse or theft of an image. Positive proof and save screen shots as evidence, before it disappears.

However the real reason for writing a repy is this.

slander n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed. Slander is VERBAL / ORAL not written.

It would be Libel if someone wrongly accused someone else on a public website in writing.

Might as well know the correct terms?

click_click · « **Reply #44 on:** May 18, 2010, 21:36 »

Well I'm glad to hear all your input regarding this question.

I will not post any of this on my blog just because of legal reasons and I need to stay 100% on the safe side. I can't take the risk of a company actually paying a lawyer to force me to take the material down. THAT would be a time waster.

Additionally, I have read some opinions that I was very surprised about.

For instance that there are contributors who (for whatever reasons like lack of time etc.) do not enforce their copyright.

Speaking for myself, in 90% of the cases that I encounter, that turn out to be copyright infringement, the infringing party complies with my demands and/or paid me lost royalties.

Interestingly, and this is why I was so surprised about some of the reactions to this thread, every single time I contacted a suspicious web site, it always turned out to be a stolen image. Every single time. Not one time I had anybody tell me that they actually purchased the image.

While I have accepted that copyright infringement is a significant part of our work (and loss of income as well) I still do have some sort of impact/leverage when it comes to protecting my copyright. When I have the time to verify I'll do it but naturally I couldn't be doing it all the time.

Thanks for all your responses.

madelaide · « **Reply #45 on:** May 19, 2010, 09:34 »

It annoys me that contacting infractors, most of the time all we get is the image removed, without any compensation for the infraction. Sometimes they replace the image for another one so bad, that I wonder why they don't simply buy a license - in the case of commercial sites, of course, not the personal ones.

What annoys me most is contacting the agencies and seeing all they get is the same - have the image removed. Not one single case of a reported watermarked image has ever turned into a sale. In one case the image is used as a background above the 800x600 size, I reported it to FT and they did nothing. I've reported 123RF thumbnails (which are unwatermarked) being used in several sites - they were exactly the size of the thumnails and I doubt it's a coincidence that a true buyer downsized a XS to exactly those sizes. That is, even they don't care about going after losses.

The biggest problem is having the image used in another country - any legal action is not financially viable. I would love to sue BBC for using a watermarked image they got at StockXpert, who never took any action.

madelaide · « **Reply #46 on:** May 19, 2010, 09:39 »

Another point: sometimes a single voice can do a lot of echo, to the point something is done.

Recently Nestlé launched here a new product, a chocolate-flavoured milk named "Alpino". I don't know if you have the "Alpino" chocolates there, but it is a very tasty chocolate. Nestlé says in their advertisement something like "The flavour of Alpino chocolate in a bottle". One person complained through twitter or whatever that the "Alpino" milk doesn't taste like the "Alpino" chocolate at all. The thing grew like a snowball, ended in the news, and some judge ordered Nestlé to remove it from the market.

Digital66 · « **Reply #47 on:** May 19, 2010, 12:36 »

Quote from: madelaide on May 19, 2010, 09:34

... Not one single case of a reported watermarked image has ever turned into a sale.

... I would love to sue BBC for using a watermarked image they got at StockXpert, who never took any action.

I remember the watermarked image used by BBC. It's amazing StockXpert did nothing.

In case of companies using watermarked images, there is no doubt that the image has been stolen. If the agency does nothing, if the company does not remove the image, and if legal action is not financially viable, I would definitely expose the case everywhere I can.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Poll

Is it ok to post screen shots in my blog of companies that infringed my copyright?

Author Topic: Is it ok to expose copyright infringement cases on my blog? (Read 17294 times)

lisafx

lisafx

lisafx

RacePhoto

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors