pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: My image used for collage on Flickr - fight over copyright...  (Read 22806 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 03, 2010, 11:43 »
0
OK, just a little story about what you can run into as a microstock (or general stock) contributor these days.

I found one of my best sellers (created in 2005 and registered copyright on it) on Flickr as part of a composition which basically consisted out of 2 images (one of them being mine). Copyright is stated in the image naming the contributor in question and not me.

Mine was the background and an isolated object was slapped into the center of the image.

As I found my image I contacted the Flickr-member, asking to have it removed.

He replied with his opinion that as he created the image with Gimp which took him "several hours" it is his image. He further explained to me that he "got the two images from different sources". So he claims the image is his.

I then informed him of the US copyright law and what is considered copyright infringement together with a link to the web site of the US Copyright Office.

I originally also asked him to let me know where he purchased the license from. No answer there. He didn't even mention that topic.

Well, long story short I contacted Yahoo with my DMCA claim waiting for the outcome, which should be obvious.

Now as I just checked back on Flickr, I realized that there is also a Deviantart watermark on the image. So I'll be heading over there to let them know as well.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2010, 11:45 by click_click »


« Reply #1 on: August 03, 2010, 11:52 »
0
Is he selling your image or allowing download of it? If not, he is well within his rights to post his "derivative artwork" on his website. He is only infringing on your copyright if he is redistributing your image in some way.

« Reply #2 on: August 03, 2010, 11:55 »
0
So basically you are angry because someone is using your image? Isn't that what (micro-)stock is all about? (if he did buy it as he should have done)
« Last Edit: August 03, 2010, 11:57 by Perry »

« Reply #3 on: August 03, 2010, 11:56 »
0
Is he selling your image or allowing download of it? If not, he is well within his rights to post his "derivative artwork" on his website. He is only infringing on your copyright if he is redistributing your image in some way.

He is offering free download. He never paid a license fee.

That's already two strikes.

« Reply #4 on: August 03, 2010, 11:56 »
0
Oh and he claims he owns the copyright.

XXX

« Reply #5 on: August 03, 2010, 11:57 »
0
Could we please see the image (flickr link) ?

« Reply #6 on: August 03, 2010, 12:03 »
0
Could we please see the image (flickr link) ?

no

I'm having enough problems keeping my best seller off of the Google image search, ebay, Zazzle, Flickr etc. - So I'm not going to play into everyobdy's hands to produce a top seller without making an effort. Sorry.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2010, 12:06 by click_click »

lisafx

« Reply #7 on: August 03, 2010, 12:09 »
0

He is offering free download.

 
Oh and he claims he owns the copyright.

Those sound like two clear violations to me. 

Too bad writing him was a waste of time.  Looks like DMCA letters to the sites he's got it on are the way to go.

« Reply #8 on: August 03, 2010, 12:14 »
0

He is offering free download.

 
Oh and he claims he owns the copyright.

Those sound like two clear violations to me. 

Too bad writing him was a waste of time.  Looks like DMCA letters to the sites he's got it on are the way to go.

Me, too. Clear violations. I am certain it will be taken down, but no other punishment will be given to the infringer, like having his account suspended. I hope flickr points him to their copyright policy, available at the bottom of their pages.

« Reply #9 on: August 03, 2010, 12:59 »
0

He is offering free download.

 
Oh and he claims he owns the copyright.

Those sound like two clear violations to me. 

Too bad writing him was a waste of time.  Looks like DMCA letters to the sites he's got it on are the way to go.

Me, too. Clear violations. I am certain it will be taken down, but no other punishment will be given to the infringer, like having his account suspended. I hope flickr points him to their copyright policy, available at the bottom of their pages.

I don't think so, if you remember my image being stolen and somebody else has that image in his portfolio, so You , FD_regular, Click-Click, Jsnover and some other people from this forum reported it and helped me to take it down. As well I sent a letter to Flicker and they suspended his account.
If a person did not buy Click-Click's image and cannot prove it, Flicker will suspend his account.

« Reply #10 on: August 03, 2010, 13:13 »
0
...
I don't think so, if you remember my image being stolen and somebody else has that image in his portfolio, so You , FD_regular, Click-Click, Jsnover and some other people from this forum reported it and helped me to take it down. As well I sent a letter to Flicker and they suspended his account.
If a person did not buy Click-Click's image and cannot prove it, Flicker will suspend his account.

Honestly, I'm already happy if the image will be removed. I don't expect much anymore these days.

They didn't really make money off of it and just tried to polish their ego by submitting it to user driven image sites.

It just leaves a sour taste when people try to pass on the image for free claiming it's theirs, even if it's a composite.

« Reply #11 on: August 03, 2010, 13:18 »
0
...
I don't think so, if you remember my image being stolen and somebody else has that image in his portfolio, so You , FD_regular, Click-Click, Jsnover and some other people from this forum reported it and helped me to take it down. As well I sent a letter to Flicker and they suspended his account.
If a person did not buy Click-Click's image and cannot prove it, Flicker will suspend his account.

Honestly, I'm already happy if the image will be removed. I don't expect much anymore these days.

They didn't really make money off of it and just tried to polish their ego by submitting it to user driven image sites.

It just leaves a sour taste when people try to pass on the image for free claiming it's theirs, even if it's a composite.

it is so ridiculous, don't get why people do this stuff, where is their dignity, honour, pride??

vonkara

« Reply #12 on: August 03, 2010, 13:55 »
0
Just link me to this xxxx head. I want to "spam" him a couple of messages. Maybe by kindly explaining him the obvious, he will understand

Btw I dislike Flick hobbyists
« Last Edit: August 03, 2010, 13:56 by Vonkara »

vonkara

« Reply #13 on: August 03, 2010, 14:02 »
0

it is so ridiculous, don't get why people do this stuff, where is their dignity, honour, pride??

Lately I saw a guy taking a isolated hotdog from microstock. The guy paint the hotdog arms, feet, mouth and eyes. He claim it was his work and he was so proud of his work. The issue is more their pride about their weak photoshop skills, and the 100 comments they get by saying, wow nice hotdog, how did you do.  ::)
« Last Edit: August 03, 2010, 14:04 by Vonkara »

« Reply #14 on: August 03, 2010, 14:14 »
0
...Lately I saw a guy taking a isolated hotdog from microstock. The guy paint the hotdog arms, feet, mouth and eyes. He claim it was his work and he was so proud of his work. The issue is more their pride about their weak photoshop skills, and the 100 comments they get by saying, wow nice hotdog, how did you do.  ::)

EXACTLY!

« Reply #15 on: August 03, 2010, 14:35 »
0

it is so ridiculous, don't get why people do this stuff, where is their dignity, honour, pride??

Lately I saw a guy taking a isolated hotdog from microstock. The guy paint the hotdog arms, feet, mouth and eyes. He claim it was his work and he was so proud of his work. The issue is more their pride about their weak photoshop skills, and the 100 comments they get by saying, wow nice hotdog, how did you do.  ::)

Yeah, I've had that happen to one of my images. It was up on deviantart and I reported it. The image came down but he still has an account.

Quote
I don't think so, if you remember my image being stolen and somebody else has that image in his portfolio, so You , FD_regular, Click-Click, Jsnover and some other people from this forum reported it and helped me to take it down. As well I sent a letter to Flicker and they suspended his account.
If a person did not buy Click-Click's image and cannot prove it, Flicker will suspend his account.

Well, that would be great if this happens. Maybe if it happened more, word of mouth would get around to the thieves that it just doesn't fly.

« Reply #16 on: August 03, 2010, 14:45 »
0
Yesterday, I also came across a forum where people "design" new DVD/BlueRay covers to "replace" the "originals".

A guy was looking for an image like mine with a few samples and asked for something in hires.

Some other dummy posted a link to my image hosted somewhere and said that this one is great because it's super high res.

Then the first dude replied that this was exaclty what he was looking for but he needed to make changes to make it fit.

So (get this) a Super-Moderator of the forum stepped in and uploaded a modified PSD-version so the OP could get it the way he needed it.

I expressed my concern to the moderators there and they weren't happy how this thread developed. I'm still waiting to hear back from them.

lisafx

« Reply #17 on: August 03, 2010, 15:10 »
0

So (get this) a Super-Moderator of the forum stepped in and uploaded a modified PSD-version so the OP could get it the way he needed it.

I expressed my concern to the moderators there and they weren't happy how this thread developed. I'm still waiting to hear back from them.

OMFG.  Unbelievable! 

How do you find these things?  Through Tineye?  I am afraid to get Tineye because I will probably have a stroke or something if I find my images misused all over the place. 

« Reply #18 on: August 03, 2010, 15:11 »
0
I expressed my concern to the moderators there and they weren't happy how this thread developed. I'm still waiting to hear back from them.

Well, maybe this is a way to "educate" the masses...monitoring some of these forums and doing exactly what you did, pointing out the legal ramifications.

« Reply #19 on: August 03, 2010, 15:22 »
0
I expressed my concern to the moderators there and they weren't happy how this thread developed. I'm still waiting to hear back from them.

Well, maybe this is a way to "educate" the masses...monitoring some of these forums and doing exactly what you did, pointing out the legal ramifications.

I think it should but that forum is basically "living" from designing covers using professional photographs of the actors from the production companies as well as the offerings of logos of the film distribution companies. So overall this is not really something I want to get in to...

« Reply #20 on: August 03, 2010, 16:24 »
0
Well, maybe this is a way to "educate" the masses...monitoring some of these forums and doing exactly what you did, pointing out the legal ramifications.
I've done that at Zazzle a couple of times.

« Reply #21 on: August 03, 2010, 16:55 »
0
Many people think that image they bought on microstock becomes their image in every way. So, they can do what ever they want with it, even resell it with some minor touch-ups.

You said you don't want to show us an image. That's OK, but I think even if you show it to us, and even if someone steals your idea, your image will still oversell very newly uploaded similar image :)
That's how it usually goes. Old stuff still sells - new stuff gets buried... :)

« Reply #22 on: August 03, 2010, 16:58 »
0
Oh, I forgot to say. I had similar problem with one artist from Deviant Art. Her work is always a derivate from stock images and her own images. She also sells those images. At least she always gives links to the artists who provided elements for the image.

« Reply #23 on: August 03, 2010, 16:59 »
0
... That's how it usually goes. Old stuff still sells - new stuff gets buried... :)

Don't say that. It makes it look like as if there is no more money in microstock  :o

« Reply #24 on: August 03, 2010, 17:14 »
0
... That's how it usually goes. Old stuff still sells - new stuff gets buried... :)

Don't say that. It makes it look like as if there is no more money in microstock  :o

lol
Ok, well, it's not exactly like this...always, but often it is.

« Reply #25 on: August 03, 2010, 17:15 »
0
... That's how it usually goes. Old stuff still sells - new stuff gets buried... :)

Don't say that. It makes it look like as if there is no more money in microstock  :o

lol
Ok, well, it's not exactly like this...always, but often it is.

That's true  ;)

« Reply #26 on: August 03, 2010, 17:44 »
0
I definitely dont want to hijack this thread, can i chime in with a question about one of my pics please? I never used this Flickr thing, probably never will and im not sure how it all works.
I also found one of my pictures there (the magic book) with another one just slammed on top and was wondering if something like this is considered legal use? "All rights reserved" is a bit vague (think i need some education too  :-\)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/67824406@N00/4559439540/#sizes/o/
(nice piece of photoshopping too, dontcha think?  ;))

« Reply #27 on: August 03, 2010, 17:57 »
0
I definitely dont want to hijack this thread, can i chime in with a question about one of my pics please? I never used this Flickr thing, probably never will and im not sure how it all works.
I also found one of my pictures there (the magic book) with another one just slammed on top and was wondering if something like this is considered legal use? "All rights reserved" is a bit vague (think i need some education too  :-\)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/67824406@N00/4559439540/#sizes/o/
(nice piece of photoshopping too, dontcha think?  ;))


I don't care about etiquette in such situations. I dare to assume that this image wasn't purchased to be a composite of that caliber.

I'd definitely contact the member asking where they purchased it from.

This should quickly resolve your issue.

Send that message twice if you don't get a response.

If no response after second time contact Yahoo with a DMCA notice - done.

Please don't take this as legal advise. This is how I do things and so far I've never found one user who did purchase the image.
Maybe this would be the first time, who knows. I'd give it a shot.

Thanks for hijacking, as this is for educational purposes!

« Reply #28 on: August 03, 2010, 18:14 »
0
I found this through tineye

Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/doingmediastudies/4684752486/#

Please follow up. It says copyright Shutterstock.


Quote
2.
By this Agreement, Shutterstock grants you a personal, non-exclusive, non-transferable, right to use and reproduce Images in the following ways, subject to the limitations set forth herein and in Part II hereof:
a)
On web sites, provided that no Image is displayed at a resolution greater than 800 x 600 pixels;
...
10.
Resell, redistribute or transfer any Image except as specifically provided herein. Displaying any Image in any digital format or for any digital use at a resolution greater than 800 x 600 pixels, except in preliminary design work, will be deemed to be an attempt to redistribute the Image and could result in the termination of your rights under this agreement.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2010, 18:21 by click_click »

vonkara

« Reply #29 on: August 03, 2010, 18:35 »
0
I found this through tineye

Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/doingmediastudies/4684752486/#

Please follow up. It says copyright Shutterstock.



This is redistributing the image completely free. I could save it to my computer right now and spread it, in random free torrents all over the web.

 For my part, I would contact Shutterstock, saying that one of their buyers is actually spreading their collection for free all over the internet. He/she even enter this image in a contest ... omg sigh
« Last Edit: August 03, 2010, 18:38 by Vonkara »

« Reply #30 on: August 03, 2010, 18:36 »
0
Thanks A LOT click_click, for the advice and for finding that 2nd one (its really huge and definitely not ok!)!
For that first, erm..masterpiece; IF she bought my picture it would be legally ok you think? I'm a bit bothered by the download thing...
I fully agree Vonkara! I'll be contacting them both and that big version better be taken off quickly.
Sometimes it really feels like selling stock equals making your pictures public domain :(

ETA: i see this "doingmediastudies" has a lot of stock pictures posted at the same huge format. Anyone selling pics with books in them better check.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2010, 18:39 by Artemis »

« Reply #31 on: August 03, 2010, 18:42 »
0
Thanks A LOT click_click, for the advice and for finding that 2nd one (its really huge and definitely not ok!)!
For that first, erm..masterpiece; IF she bought my picture it would be legally ok you think? I'm a bit bothered by the download thing...
I fully agree Vonkara! I'll be contacting them both and that big version better be taken off quickly.
Sometimes it really feels like selling stock equals making your pictures public domain :(

ETA: i see this "doingmediastudies" has a lot of stock pictures posted at the same huge format. Anyone selling pics with books in them better check.

First things first: Contact the Flickr member first and ask in a polite manner where they obtained the image.

You can do it two ways. Either you identify yourself as the copyright owner or you act like as if you want the image as well and maybe you get a link where they took your image from.
You may hit two birds with one stone this way.

Once this is settled you know what to do.

« Reply #32 on: August 03, 2010, 19:05 »
0
Indeed i do know what to do now, thanks again! :)
It's done and done as well, written to them both. If the large versions aren't gone within 48 hours im contacting Shutterstock too. (i'd like to give them a chance in case there really was no malicious intent, which i suspect because he credits shutterstock)
Vonkara, to me it looks like he used the pictures to announce a competition, but maybe i'm seeing that wrong...

« Reply #33 on: August 03, 2010, 19:14 »
0
In IS, they say:
Quote
For clarity, you may not use the Content in products for resale, license or other distribution, unless (i) the proposed use is allowable under an Extended License which is available for the Content; or (ii) if the original Content has been fundamentally modified or transformed sufficiently that it constitutes an original work entitling the author or artist to copyright protection under applicable law, and where the primary value of such transformed or derivative work is not recognizable as the Content nor is the Content capable of being downloaded, extracted or accessed by a third party as a stand-alone file (satisfaction of these conditions will constitute the work as a Permitted Derivative Work for the purposes of this Agreement)
I underlined the text above because it is always a question: what is 'fundamentally modified or transformed"? It seems a very subjective matter. The background used in another thread seems a valid usage to me (the original image can not be extracted), but in the examples here I am not so sure.

« Reply #34 on: August 04, 2010, 00:30 »
0
"theblackhauke" just replied to me that she found the image on Bing; she offered to credit me or take the image offline; i'll reply i prefer the last option.
Bing led me to 'the Asbury church' website where there's another huge version of the image ready for take. Mailed them too.
You were right click_click, two birds with one stone :)
Any news on your stolen images click_click? Did you send a DMCA notice?

ETA: they're gone, 1 down 2 to go.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2010, 02:26 by Artemis »

« Reply #35 on: August 04, 2010, 06:40 »
0
"theblackhauke" just replied to me that she found the image on Bing; she offered to credit me or take the image offline; i'll reply i prefer the last option.
Bing led me to 'the Asbury church' website where there's another huge version of the image ready for take. Mailed them too.
You were right click_click, two birds with one stone :)
Any news on your stolen images click_click? Did you send a DMCA notice?

ETA: they're gone, 1 down 2 to go.

Yep, the one on flickr is gone. Nice work!
Love your avatar, by the way!

« Reply #36 on: August 04, 2010, 07:53 »
0
Thank you miss cclapper!  ;D
I just received a message from "doingmediastudies" with an apology saying they didnt realize it was so huge and telling me they took the large version offline. I think they made a mistake though, it's still there, just have to go through one more click. Bugging them again (:

« Reply #37 on: August 04, 2010, 09:19 »
0
I have a question...  I buy images from DT and SS all the time for use on my blog and blogs of my clients.  I never claim copyright on the images because they aren't mine, but anyone can get them off my web site by right-click save or just doing a screen capture (since I buy XS web size).  I haven't been making a habit of adding an attribute to each image used, but I do put links on my "about" page to all of the artists portfolio whose images I've purchased (with my affiliate code, of course :)).

Other than implementing some sort of "right-click" protection, anything else I should be doing?

« Reply #38 on: August 04, 2010, 09:24 »
0
Hello,I readd and all this is scary.I think the person honestly didnot know issue and agreement meaning. What more scary is how many more you did not find.
Maybe this is reason for dip in sales for many as explained here in form.
Soon, if stock agencies not careful, many of our work will be free on cd for sales on ebay or download free torrent like porn movie and movie problem.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #39 on: August 04, 2010, 09:32 »
0
The sad thing is the only ones you know were stolen are the ones tineye has found so far. As time progresses and tineye has crawled more of the web will we all know how huge the problem really has gotten.

« Reply #40 on: August 04, 2010, 09:34 »
0
Soon, if stock agencies not careful, many of our work will be free on cd for sales on ebay or download free torrent like porn movie and movie problem.
That's the case already. But what will they do with it? Music and movies you can enjoy in private, but using an image on the web is a public thing. If people are spreading their images over many agencies, how anybody can prove that it wasn't bought somewhere? The sites won't help you, if you're not exclusive. How could they?

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #41 on: August 04, 2010, 09:42 »
0
Soon, if stock agencies not careful, many of our work will be free on cd for sales on ebay or download free torrent like porn movie and movie problem.
That's the case already. But what will they do with it? Music and movies you can enjoy in private, but using an image on the web is a public thing. If people are spreading their images over many agencies, how anybody can prove that it wasn't bought somewhere? The sites won't help you, if you're not exclusive. How could they?

Every time a buyer posts one of those pictures on their website the next person could come along...right click...save as...and use on the next website waiting for the next person to do the same. Some probably use them for those "2000 stock photos for $1.00" cd's depending on the size. That is a little hard to prevent. No telling how many pictures are floating around out there that this has been the case. If you a designer and photographer and buyer, you know that this isn't right but an average everyday person wouldn't.

« Reply #42 on: August 04, 2010, 09:44 »
0
Hello,I readd and all this is scary.I think the person honestly didnot know issue and agreement meaning. What more scary is how many more you did not find.
Maybe this is reason for dip in sales for many as explained here in form.
Soon, if stock agencies not careful, many of our work will be free on cd for sales on ebay or download free torrent like porn movie and movie problem.

Ten years ago you could get access to every Photodisc etc. on the precursors to torrent sites such as Hotline, and buy them on disc for a couple of dollars.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #43 on: August 04, 2010, 09:45 »
0
About the only way a person could know who actually purchased the photo and who didn't was if the stock sites actually provided details about the buyers, but I doubt that will ever happen.

« Reply #44 on: August 04, 2010, 10:32 »
0
I have a question...  I buy images from DT and SS all the time for use on my blog and blogs of my clients.  I never claim copyright on the images because they aren't mine, but anyone can get them off my web site by right-click save or just doing a screen capture (since I buy XS web size).  I haven't been making a habit of adding an attribute to each image used, but I do put links on my "about" page to all of the artists portfolio whose images I've purchased (with my affiliate code, of course :)).

Other than implementing some sort of "right-click" protection, anything else I should be doing?

Sounds to me like you have it pretty well covered. I can't think of any other way to stop the stealing.

« Reply #45 on: August 04, 2010, 12:17 »
0
Soon, if stock agencies not careful, many of our work will be free on cd for sales on ebay or download free torrent like porn movie and movie problem.
That's the case already. But what will they do with it? Music and movies you can enjoy in private, but using an image on the web is a public thing. If people are spreading their images over many agencies, how anybody can prove that it wasn't bought somewhere? The sites won't help you, if you're not exclusive. How could they?

Every time a buyer posts one of those pictures on their website the next person could come along...right click...save as...and use on the next website waiting for the next person to do the same. Some probably use them for those "2000 stock photos for $1.00" cd's depending on the size. That is a little hard to prevent. No telling how many pictures are floating around out there that this has been the case. If you a designer and photographer and buyer, you know that this isn't right but an average everyday person wouldn't.
True! It's amazing how few people seem aware it's not ok to just right-click, save and use for whatever needed. Today at work i was talking about image theft and they all were genuinely surprised. Turns out they're all 'right-clickers', for their websites, for our center magazine etc (not anymore now ;)). As soon as it's on the net it seems to lose all it's value and becomes 'take what you need'.

« Reply #46 on: August 04, 2010, 12:22 »
0
I hard about a software or image format that expires once a license is not valid anymore.

I think selling RF should be limited to maybe 2 or 3 years as a valid usage period. Who else needs images running for longer campaigns etc.?

I would be totally for this system so that the images are harder to copy.

Of course it will always be possible to make a copy but the harder it is, the fewer infringements will occur... maybe? Maybe not.

« Reply #47 on: August 04, 2010, 12:53 »
0
I hard about a software or image format that expires once a license is not valid anymore.
The moment they invent some embedded license/usage code, two hours later it's cracked and you will have "image cleaners" around. Look what happened to the WMA format and long ago, to the Region Codes in DVD's. The only ones that suffer are the legal buyers.

« Reply #48 on: August 04, 2010, 12:58 »
0
I hard about a software or image format that expires once a license is not valid anymore.
The moment they invent some embedded license/usage code, two hours later it's cracked and you will have "image cleaners" around. Look what happened to the WMA format and long ago, to the Region Codes in DVD's. The only ones that suffer are the legal buyers.

I know what you mean but the regular Joe Does out there who finally understood the concept of right-clicking and saving won't immediately get this system.

It's never 100% fool proof nor will it prevent copyright infringement. I never implied that.

« Reply #49 on: August 04, 2010, 14:48 »
0
...
Any news on your stolen images click_click? Did you send a DMCA notice?
...

Yep, Yahoo just removed the image from Flickr.

All is well.

« Reply #50 on: August 04, 2010, 14:53 »
0

« Reply #51 on: August 04, 2010, 15:27 »
0
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/doingmediastudies/4684752486/#

This one is still up.

Yeah Cathy  >:( They replied with apologies telling me they took the big version off, but i guess they missed this one (takes one extra click now), so mailed them back pointing this one out with a direct link to it...still waiting for a reply.

Thats great click_click! Victory! :D
Pity for his many hours of photoshop, haha!

« Reply #52 on: August 04, 2010, 15:46 »
0
It will probably come down soon, then.

lisafx

« Reply #53 on: August 04, 2010, 18:19 »
0

...
Any news on your stolen images click_click? Did you send a DMCA notice?
...

Yep, Yahoo just removed the image from Flickr.

All is well.
[/quote]

Congrats Click!  Well done!

Good luck getting yours down too Artemis :)

« Reply #54 on: August 04, 2010, 18:57 »
0

...
Any news on your stolen images click_click? Did you send a DMCA notice?
...

Yep, Yahoo just removed the image from Flickr.

All is well.

Congrats Click!  Well done!

Good luck getting yours down too Artemis :)

I'm glad Yahoo sees it the same way as I do.

« Reply #55 on: August 04, 2010, 19:02 »
0
A bit off topic maybe, but where can I find that DCMA (?) form?

« Reply #56 on: August 04, 2010, 19:08 »
0
I don't think so, if you remember my image being stolen and somebody else has that image in his portfolio, so You , FD_regular, Click-Click, Jsnover and some other people from this forum reported it and helped me to take it down. As well I sent a letter to Flicker and they suspended his account.
If somebody puts a clear link here to the photo of the offender on Flickr and a link to the photo on any agency site, I always put a comment on the Flickr photo with the latter link. It's just 30 sec, but I think you can't let your pal down, even if it's just a droplet in the sea.

lisafx

« Reply #57 on: August 04, 2010, 19:10 »
0
This is the one I have used.  
http://labnol.blogspot.com/2007/09/dmca-notice-of-copyright-infringement.html

FWIW it is DMCA (think it stands for Digital Media Copyright Act), rather than DCMA, which may be why you were having trouble finding it :)
« Last Edit: August 04, 2010, 19:12 by lisafx »

« Reply #58 on: August 04, 2010, 19:14 »
0
This is the one I have used.  
http://labnol.blogspot.com/2007/09/dmca-notice-of-copyright-infringement.html

FWIW it is DMCA (think it stands for Digital Media Copyright Act), rather than DCMA, which may be why you were having trouble finding it :)


That should work. Sometimes the different web sites require the individual points numbered as they want the information in a certain order.
Like sometimes they want the digital signature at first, sometimes last etc.

Also if you use Google searching for "DMCA template" you should get what you need.

« Reply #59 on: August 04, 2010, 19:16 »
0
DMCA = Digital Millennium Copyright Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmca

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #60 on: August 04, 2010, 19:17 »
0
I don't think so, if you remember my image being stolen and somebody else has that image in his portfolio, so You , FD_regular, Click-Click, Jsnover and some other people from this forum reported it and helped me to take it down. As well I sent a letter to Flicker and they suspended his account.

If somebody puts a clear link here to the photo of the offender on Flickr and a link to the photo on any agency site, I always put a comment on the Flickr photo with the latter link. It's just 30 sec, but I think you can't let your pal down, even if it's just a droplet in the sea.
This is the one I have used.  
http://labnol.blogspot.com/2007/09/dmca-notice-of-copyright-infringement.html


FWIW it is DMCA (think it stands for Digital Media Copyright Act), rather than DCMA, which may be why you were having trouble finding it :)



FD You need to put the link on your website so we all know who to contact to find out... ;)
« Last Edit: August 04, 2010, 19:20 by donding »

« Reply #61 on: August 04, 2010, 19:20 »
0
FWIW it is DMCA (think it stands for Digital Media Copyright Act), rather than DCMA, which may be why you were having trouble finding it :)
I'm not a dsyleixc!  :P (only with acronyms - like TFPCDC).  ;)

« Reply #62 on: August 04, 2010, 19:42 »
0
That should work. Sometimes the different web sites require the individual points numbered as they want the information in a certain order. Like sometimes they want the digital signature at first, sometimes last etc.
Correct. (Thanks!)
Also if you use Google searching for "DMCA template" you should get what you need.
Got it. @Donding: yes of course I will put the links in profile.

lisafx

« Reply #63 on: August 04, 2010, 19:58 »
0
DMCA = Digital Millennium Copyright Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmca


Darn.  I was so close! 

Mr. Smartypants ;D

« Reply #64 on: August 04, 2010, 19:59 »
0
DMCA = Digital Millennium Copyright Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmca


Darn.  I was so close! 

Mr. Smartypants ;D


At your service.

« Reply #65 on: August 04, 2010, 23:00 »
0
I've been using only the "I swear..." paragraph, with perfect results. Before that, I normally describe the infraction and give links to where the images are sold under my name.

« Reply #66 on: August 05, 2010, 06:21 »
0
I've been using only the "I swear..." paragraph, with perfect results. Before that, I normally describe the infraction and give links to where the images are sold under my name.

That used to work at Fotolia but they require a DMCA claim as mentioned above as well.

Just with your clause you won't get far anymore wherever they ask for a full DMCA claim.

It's important to deliver what the web site owners want otherwise our claims will be delayed significantly.

« Reply #67 on: August 05, 2010, 07:03 »
0
If somebody puts a clear link here to the photo of the offender on Flickr and a link to the photo on any agency site, I always put a comment on the Flickr photo with the latter link. It's just 30 sec, but I think you can't let your pal down, even if it's just a droplet in the sea.

I think this is a great idea. I don't believe in harassing people that are misusing our photos, but if the link to the "stolen" photo were posted here, we all could post a comment saying that the person is copyright infringing and pointing out their error. Other people will read it, and maybe word will start to get around about the facts of the matter. At least until their page comes down.

« Reply #68 on: August 05, 2010, 09:12 »
0
I think this is a great idea. I don't believe in harassing people that are misusing our photos, but if the link to the "stolen" photo were posted here, we all could post a comment saying that the person is copyright infringing and pointing out their error. Other people will read it, and maybe word will start to get around about the facts of the matter. At least until their page comes down.

I like your idea, we should start doing that.

« Reply #69 on: August 05, 2010, 10:15 »
0
At your service.

Thanks to click_clik, the DMCA letter. You can actually find a lot on Google, but the guys I borrowed the templates from are on page 2 or 3.

« Reply #70 on: August 05, 2010, 18:51 »
0
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/doingmediastudies/4684752486/#

This one is still up.

This member is no longer active on Flickr.
Aww, all i asked is to take the big version offline. Fixed and more... :)
2 from the 3 down...ashbury church remains unresponsive for now.

« Reply #71 on: August 05, 2010, 22:39 »
0
In the first and only place from my POW I dont understand why this places like Flicker or Deviant exist???
Lets say that I understand
99% or more creatures of this services are creeps in one or another way.
On Flicker there are 99% of altruistic creeps who just want to eventually somewho see they "marvelous snap images" from they vacation which they dont know to reduce in size, but on Deviant are creeps on square. I think that after you sign up there you got title "Designer" so there are all wanna be designers.
After this more than trivial process we have posts like this in first place...
Anyhow Deviant sux, I think it this deviant creeps are the well of pirated blogs of our images.
So kill wanebe "Deviant site in first plaace"

« Reply #72 on: August 06, 2010, 07:14 »
0
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/doingmediastudies/4684752486/#

This one is still up.

This member is no longer active on Flickr.
Aww, all i asked is to take the big version offline. Fixed and more... :)
2 from the 3 down...ashbury church remains unresponsive for now.


Yay!

« Reply #73 on: August 06, 2010, 10:30 »
0
I dream of a day when Flickr & others will start reminding people they should comply with the IP rules, and even tell N accounts have been closed due to this.  Otherwise I think the culture won't change.  For each account closed there are many with the same type of infraction.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #74 on: August 06, 2010, 10:37 »
0
I dream of a day when Flickr & others will start reminding people they should comply with the IP rules, and even tell N accounts have been closed due to this.  Otherwise I think the culture won't change.  For each account closed there are many with the same type of infraction.

Exactly. It's always going to be a uphill battle.

« Reply #75 on: August 06, 2010, 10:50 »
0
It's actually not that complicated to set-up MORE warnings for all the uploaders.

1. Make everything HTML upload

2. When images are chosen to upload and user clicks "Upload" a big red window should pop up (or a redirect to a follow page) asking: "Are these your own images, or did you download them somewhere else?"

3. If they press: "Yes, these are my images" another big yellow window will pop up saying: "If you upload images that you did not take or create you are committing copyright infringement. If any of your images infringe somebody's copyright, you will be held liable for all damages and loss of royalties that occurred due to your actions". If you still want to continue uploading these images press: "I am not committing copyright infringement" otherwise click on "I didn't know that but thanks for telling me."

Is that so hard?
« Last Edit: August 06, 2010, 10:54 by click_click »

« Reply #76 on: August 06, 2010, 12:45 »
0
It's actually not that complicated to set-up MORE warnings for all the uploaders.

1. Make everything HTML upload

2. When images are chosen to upload and user clicks "Upload" a big red window should pop up (or a redirect to a follow page) asking: "Are these your own images, or did you download them somewhere else?"

3. If they press: "Yes, these are my images" another big yellow window will pop up saying: "If you upload images that you did not take or create you are committing copyright infringement. If any of your images infringe somebody's copyright, you will be held liable for all damages and loss of royalties that occurred due to your actions". If you still want to continue uploading these images press: "I am not committing copyright infringement" otherwise click on "I didn't know that but thanks for telling me."

Is that so hard?

No, not hard at all. Maybe we should all copy and paste that in an email to yahoo.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2010, 11:30 by cclapper »

« Reply #77 on: September 04, 2010, 21:38 »
0
It's actually not that complicated to set-up MORE warnings for all the uploaders.

1. Make everything HTML upload

2. When images are chosen to upload and user clicks "Upload" a big red window should pop up (or a redirect to a follow page) asking: "Are these your own images, or did you download them somewhere else?"

3. If they press: "Yes, these are my images" another big yellow window will pop up saying: "If you upload images that you did not take or create you are committing copyright infringement. If any of your images infringe somebody's copyright, you will be held liable for all damages and loss of royalties that occurred due to your actions". If you still want to continue uploading these images press: "I am not committing copyright infringement" otherwise click on "I didn't know that but thanks for telling me."

Is that so hard?

Great idea.

« Reply #78 on: September 05, 2010, 03:08 »
0
A little bit off-topic, but related in some way. Microsoft used pirated audio software for making sounds in windows xp, lol:

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-11183-0.html?forumID=89&threadID=173539&messageID=1765547


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
New Feature: Image Fight

Started by Istock News Microstock News

13 Replies
3346 Views
Last post March 10, 2007, 04:21
by Bateleur
16 Replies
5995 Views
Last post April 11, 2010, 07:25
by Microbius
29 Replies
7145 Views
Last post June 26, 2012, 00:45
by grafix04
989 Replies
91061 Views
Last post March 18, 2014, 08:32
by KimsCreativeHub
3 Replies
2103 Views
Last post July 30, 2014, 08:46
by ruxpriencdiam

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results