What do you think would be an adequate number of stolen images in your portfolio or ripped off photographers until an agency will shut you down?

One

Do yo mean stolen or plagiarazed?

I mean downloaded, modified in Photoshop (simple plugin change) and re-uploaded.

Or downloaded and used as a part of another composition consisting out of other stolen images.

With plagiarized I understand that he took someone's concept and re-shoot it himself. That is not the case here.
He downloaded the images of others, modified them (slightly) and is selling them as his own. The changes are so slightly that even Tineye picked it up...

Please name and shame both the thief and the agency in question (especially the latter). Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

We'll see how things turn out, but I was pleasantly surprised today when I got a quick response to a claim that a contributor had taken an image of mine and used it with minimal changes (a blurry background in one case and a few other background elements in the other) as if it were his own.

The portfolio has been suspended pending investigation. I wonder if there are other "composites" made with copyrighted content in the portfolio - I was kindly alerted by another contributor to this misuse.

One inadvertent mistake might be forgivable, but when you have over 1,000 images in your portfolio you'd think something like this isn't a beginner's mistake. Even from the agency's point of view, how can they continue offering work from someone who doesn't want to honor other contributor's copyright?

I just contacted Fotolia about three images from the same contributor that I found in his portfolio there (Dreamstime was the agency that I referred to earlier in my first post). I pointed out to Fotolia that Dreamstime had suspended his portfolio pending investigation and that I expect them to do the same).

I have also contacted 123rf about 2 of the images they have for sale. I wrote to iStock's compliance enforcement about this too, so I hope they can help get this guy taken care of.

Thanks for the heads up on this.

Once ......and too bad it's so difficult on the world scene to take these scum-eating thieves to trial!!

And yes,  he/she should be named and so should the agency hosting him/her AND... the agencies where they came from.  This gives us all a heads-up alert to protect ourselves.  Some agencies are swift at slamming down on this sort of thing while others couldnt be bothered.  Those that cant be bothered should be known to us. I for one would pull my port,  why would I support their profits when they couldnt care less about mine?
   Those that support us, as SS recently did for me and others by catching even legit buyers abusing the system,  I commend and and thank and support.  Those that don't..."  hey, couldnt care less about me,  hasta la vista, baby".
    One thing I am so tired of doing is having to waste time searching for stolen work.... like this moron with almost 1400 pix.  And I sure dont have time to put my upteen thousand pix thru tineye...  sad.
   Thanks for the info, click X2.    =tom

Maybe they do, I don't know...

They don't...

Otherwise I wouldn't be posting this...

We'll see how things turn out, but I was pleasantly surprised today when I got a quick response to a claim that a contributor had taken an image of mine and used it with minimal changes (a blurry background in one case and a few other background elements in the other) as if it were his own.

The portfolio has been suspended pending investigation. I wonder if there are other "composites" made with copyrighted content in the portfolio - I was kindly alerted by another contributor to this misuse.

One inadvertent mistake might be forgivable, but when you have over 1,000 images in your portfolio you'd think something like this isn't a beginner's mistake. Even from the agency's point of view, how can they continue offering work from someone who doesn't want to honor other contributor's copyright?

If the agency has a decent lawyer advising them, then the response from DT is the one that they should take - and quickly. None of the agencies can afford the potential liability of breaching copyright by knowingly allowing a contributor to do this sort of thing. If its brought to their attention, and they do nothing they lose all defenses against becoming liable themselves for breach of copyright.

Its one thing for an individual to do it - chasing and suing individuals for breach of copyright can be difficult, but an agency that has a regular revenue source and a place of business becomes a sitting duck for a potentially expensive law suit - the procedures they have in place for dealing with these sorts of complaints would be very relevant in determining liability and potential damages.

Its one thing for this thing to happen - in some respects its unavoidable, but to let it go on without taking action is every plaintiff lawyer's wet dream.

I contacted (via iStock site mail) the owner of an elephant image that fritzkocher has used in images on SS and FT with other backgrounds. This guy clearly has no shame and the number of problems indicate willful behavior not an inadvertant mistake.

Not what I had planned to do with my morning, but I'll contact anyone else I happen to notice being infringed. The more of us contacting the agencies about this the sooner they'll realize they have to do something about it.

Quote from: jsnover on October 05, 2009, 12:49

I contacted (via iStock site mail) the owner of an elephant image that fritzkocher has used in images on SS and FT with other backgrounds. This guy clearly has no shame and the number of problems indicate willful behavior not an inadvertant mistake.

Not what I had planned to do with my morning, but I'll contact anyone else I happen to notice being infringed. The more of us contacting the agencies about this the sooner they'll realize they have to do something about it.

I just sent an email to SS about the elephant...

I think they will sort it out

The kicker is, that SS let him come back online after being taken down for a bit.
Never seen that before...

I've always found Jon to be a straight shooter, but honestly that's just not right. To let someone come back without checking their content for more of what they got removed for is sloppy.

I'd bet that the statue of liberty composites aren't legit, but it's harder to check as there are so many shots of that and finding a unique element in a shot not so easy. I think I'm going to go and do something else for a bit so I can calm down.

Well I hope that nobody who has had their images stolen can afford a decent lawyer, or there goes any chance of an increase in royalties from SS for a long time.

Letting somebody like that back on, rather than taking proper remedial action is just inviting potential litigants to sue you. Lets not mention the liability from clients who download images in good faith - a host of disclaimers in your supply agreements won't absolve you from an action for negligence in many jurisdictions. 

This sort of thing just shouldn't be the sort of thing that sites forgive - the potential for liability is just too large. I'm often amazed by how little regard some established companies have for basic risk management.  The best time to hire a lawyer is when you're setting up systems to avoid risk - not when you've already got a problem.... its much cheaper that way!

Well said, but...

WELCOME TO THE WORLD OF MICROSTOCK

I've seen it too many times happen that thieves get their payouts (up to the point when they are exposed) and then either get warned or kicked out (creating a new fake account).

In most cases they don't reside in the same country like the agency so legal actions ARE NOT taken.

Even if they live in the same country it is wayyyy too expensive to hire a lawyer. Mostly the damages per agency are in the lower thousands which makes it not even worth pursuing those numb nuts.

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?

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.

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.

Aside from the stealing issue, that is some of the cheesiest Photoshop work I've seen.

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.

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.... 

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.

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!

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...

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.

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.

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 ...

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.

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.

It is almost unbelievable that all of these agencies seem to be allowing this to continue long after the issue has been reported. It seems almost as if they are deliberately allowing this. With luck someone with lots of followers will Twitter this story. Then maybe PDN and the other industry sites will pick it up.

This is one of the problems with some of the microstocks and the customers should know.

Follow the links, you'll see that accounts and images have disappeared since yesterday. The agencies do watch and respond. I suppose you want instant removal without review, and then when some agency does just that, people scream that their account was closed unfairly without anyone contacting them.

Can't have it both ways and sometimes it takes a day or longer to review a case.

click_click you aren't the first and when the subject has come up about vectors and people who steal and copy and reconstruct it's been hashed over until vector artists have to defend themselves unnecessarily against a broad stroke of the guilt brush. The number of people who are unscrupulous is small, but the cases that are found may also not be most of them. Report it and be patient. Seems like you've been through this before and are doing the right thing by pointing it out and reporting them.

Then we have the subject messages:

XX closed my account
another vector thief
Stolen images - payback time
Theft again - please see if your images have been stolen, too.
Banned From XXX! What shall I do?
XX suspended our account
They froze my entire collection

Where people say they have done nothing and were suspended or closed unfairly.

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.

Looks like he's gone at 123rf now too. I contacted them 4 times already about this matter and finally... 
Stockxpert seems to have a problem of letting go of him  still online with oodles of stolen pictures.

/~ and the beat goes on...

Many of these agencies require identification to set up accounts, and surely if he had enough sales to get payouts there would be financial records too - shouldn't it then be possible for someone who's had their material stolen to track him down if he's in the US as he says he is?

Doesn't Istock claim to better protect exclusive contributors? Maybe its time for a precedent to be set?

Of course offering an image for 'resale', which is effectively what he has done, would have required an EL anyway. Jo Anne could certainly ask IS to persue him in that regard (as the only place he could have bought her images). IS should have all his details and he may still have money in his account.

...Of course offering an image for 'resale', which is effectively what he has done, would have required an EL anyway. ...

Please elaborate on that.

Are you saying that anyone can buy my images as EL and then sell them as their own?

This case here is a full blown copyright infringement not a licensing problem.

Quote from: click_click on October 06, 2009, 11:05

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.

Looks like he's gone at 123rf now too. I contacted them 4 times already about this matter and finally... 
Stockxpert seems to have a problem of letting go of him  still online with oodles of stolen pictures.

/~ and the beat goes on...

I asked an iStock staff member to try and hurry StockXpert along in closing his account (as they are now a Getty company too I thought they might be able to speed things up).

As far as I know there is no EL that entitles you to offer the image itself for resale - those ELs are for cards, calendars, mugs, prints, etc. where you are reselling an item with the image on it.

And yes, I used to be independent, but I don't think how he acquired the image is the issue. Nowhere licenses images so people can upload them as their own. IS is the only site currently entitled to license that image and anyone else who does so is treading on IS's business turf.

Some of the images have gone from StockXpert, but not all (one of the three of mine is still up; several of the lady liberty shots are even though one or two have gone). I've contacted IS again about this to let them know and urge them again to work to get StockXpert to pull the whole portfolio.

Submitters who repeatedly and willfully violate the terms of the upload agreement should not be allowed to be submitters, even for the images to which they do own the copyright. Otherwise how to discourage anyone from doing this, taking the money and running when caught?

Some of the images have gone from StockXpert, but not all (one of the three of mine is still up; several of the lady liberty shots are even though one or two have gone). I've contacted IS again about this to let them know and urge them again to work to get StockXpert to pull the whole portfolio.

Submitters who repeatedly and willfully violate the terms of the upload agreement should not be allowed to be submitters, even for the images to which they do own the copyright. Otherwise how to discourage anyone from doing this, taking the money and running when caught?

Well, I guess you could always go on a date with him __ he certainly owes you a good meal and a drink from the money he's made from your stuff;

http://www.matchmaker.com/ComposeMail.do?to=fritzkocher&no_user=rso

@click_click. IS is making this happen, but they think there is some sort of a lag - they should all be gone (they said StockXpert's systems didn't work the same way theirs did; that's true - the StockXpert systems sometimes didn't record any of the Jupiter sales revenues until contributors hollered loudly enough I am getting responses from IS HQ.

I'm glad the wheels are turning.

As a non-exclusive though I have to mention how sad it is what's happened to Stockxpert.

Unfortunately as soon as Getty was in the picture things got really messed up there. StockXpert used to be a great performer and very responsive.
Some nice people there have left the company. Sad thing to see.

...
Stolen images - payback time
Theft again - please see if your images have been stolen, too.

...

Where people say they have done nothing and were suspended or closed unfairly.

@ RacePhoto:

Just to make this clear:

The list you brought up included two of my threads where I did not complain about a company shutting me down for stealing anybody's images.

Just to recap: I found one of my images all over the internet through Google's image search. In fact someone uploaded my image on Zazzle and sold products with my photo. I managed to expose the culprit to Zazzle and they paid the commissions to me instead of the thief. Very cooperative behavior which you can not expect from any stock agency.

I once talked to StockXpert about splitting the lost commission with me but in the end they didn't offer anything.

The other thread was to inform other fellow photographers about a site offering stock images via rapidshare. I'm just trying to help out the community.

...
I don't think any of those threads were yours. (but heck I've been wrong before) They didn't have your name on them? Are there a couple of you?
...

Here Racephoto:

http://www.microstockgroup.com/image-sleuth/stolen-images-payback-time-from-zazzle/

http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/image-theft-copyright-infringement-and-the-like/msg96220/#msg96220

I think you did not refer to the second one as someone else posted a similar thread containing pretty much the same message.

I do agree with you as well so no hard feelings. I just want to make sure that I'm being thrown into the pot of thieves/complainers!

why would any of the agencies leave his portfolios online at all ?

I do agree with you as well so no hard feelings. I just want to make sure that I'm being thrown into the pot of thieves/complainers!

No that wasn't the point. Bringing this up and getting some action was good for many people.

It just takes time and hopefully all the agencies will remove him.

Oh it's very unpleasant discussion. I’m an illustrator and meet with this problem rather often. Stocks do not react if you complain about non-yours but unambiguously stolen images. They react only if you complain about your own images and only if it’s obvious. If any changes took place, you should to lay oneself out to prove your rights. As usual, thieves prefer to use images from several authors that mean that all victims should report to support together. Sometimes its difficult to find and contact with other authors. The easiest way is stock’s forum but unfortunately stocks don’t like such themes on their forums   very comfortable isn’t it?
I mean we should unit somehow, it’s almost impossible, but it’s the only way to make stocks to observe the rules of mutual agreement.

This is correct.

Another thing:

I contacted the agency on behalf of another fellow contributor because I tried to contact him several times vie email and via phone.

No response. There is only so much I can do since it's not my images that has been stolen but in this case I stunned that the original copyright owner wouldn't respond.

In this particular case fritzkocher used that image at least 5 times in his compositions.

Still online at BigStock...

Sorry for the horrendous spelling in my last post. I was still trying to wake up...

Side point:  THIS is one of the very reasons I love MSG!!  This is truly like a tight family around here!! I am proud to be a Premie Member!!
   Fantastic work and congrats to all involved in bringing this guy down! =tom

I like the idea of a dedicated area to handle this problem. If... leaf can set it up that way......

Side point:  THIS is one of the very reasons I love MSG!!  This is truly like a tight family around here!! I am proud to be a Premie Member!!
   Fantastic work and congrats to all involved in bringing this guy down! =tom

That's not a side point, it's the point ... and I agree with everything you say!

Nice work MSG team and hats off to Leaf for having made this place what it is.