Advice needed re copyright and printing infringements

[Daisy Mae]

Hi Folks,

I got a message from someone I know ( a little) online telling me he had ordered 2 canvas prints of my work a few weeks back and that they were now on his wall. He was very pleased with them.

Now my work is not available for sale anywhere as yet and so I assume he downloaded them from facebook or more likely for the quality he needed followed the link to my flickr acc.

I have had a few pictures printed up myself...for friends and as far as I recall I always had to declare that they were my property to do so. Can I assume that he would have had to 'consciouasly' lie at this point?

So I am asking myself ( and now you guys) just how much he has lied and breached my copyright in order to obtain these prints and what you would do in my position.

It goes without saying that my photographs on Flickr are all rights reserved and that he didn't contact me to ask my permission.

I would really appreciate your input on this...thanks.

[benm]

If he had simply stolen them why would he tell you he did? He told you he "ordered" them. So it may be someone else who is stealing your work and offering it for sale. Maybe you can ask him where he "ordered" them from.

[DanK]

Such things happen often, I suspect. In an idle moment a few months ago, I looked to see where referrals to my Smugmug account came from--that is, the web sites that had linked to my photos. One of the higher counts was from something called forum.woodenboats.com. This puzzled me. I don't have a wooden boat and had never heard of the site. it turned out that someone who posts there stole an image of mine and posted it as if it were his own.

I second Ben's advice: find out how he ordered it. Beyond that, your options may be limited. Copyright laws vary, so those of us on this side of the pond can't help you much with that. One option, which I only do sometimes because I think it is ugly, is to watermark your images when you upload them. That makes them less appealing to steal.

[ShaneS]

Sorry to hear that Sharon. If you do find that you ordered them from an online source that you can send a strongly worded letter to the owner of the site threatening to have them shut down if they don't remove your copyrighted work. This has worked for me in the past but I would have to dig to find the email. PM me if it gets to that point and I will find the email.

When it rains it pour doesn't it? This is the probably last thing you needed to find out or want to deal with so close to your Dad's passing. Hang in there!

[Shadowman]

Can you do an online search for either images bearing your copyright or title of the images?

[dabhand]

Sharon - I think Scottish law on this would be quite unambiguous - you created them = your copyright + no permission given = theft.

Assuming the person who contacted you bought them in good faith from someone else then (unless you say otherwise) they must destroy the prints - it's the seller who committed the theft. The big problem comes if the thief is based outside Scottish jurisdiction, that makes it just about impossible to get any redress.

[Shadowman]

It looks like Flickr has a policy against selling through their website, so unless someone downloaded your images he didn't do it through that account.

http://www.flickr.com/help/guidelines/

[terrib]

So many people don't "get" the copyright thing so it is possible (especially given that he told you about it) that the guy did not intentionally lie to get them printed. He may not have read the fine print or his interpretation of whatever the printer might have written reference "right to print" may have wrong. He may have felt that you'd be honored that he'd want to put your work on his wall. Doesn't make him right, just ignorant. Then again, who knows what he was thinking. He could be a thief and a jerk.

As far as whether your images are out there somewhere, there is a website called TinEye.com. It's not full proof but you can use a plugin in your web browser or you can upload a photo or a link to a photo and it will search the web to see where all that photo shows up. If it has been stolen and offered by someone else, you might find it that way. Google also has a search to do a similar thing. I use these tools as moderator of a Google+ Community to check when I suspect someone is posting someone else's work. If they are, I have it removed with a note to them. If they re-offend, then they are banned from posting.

[Daisy Mae]

Well....blow me down.

They were sales from an ancient Red Bubble Account. I don't even recognise the titles of the pieces.

Looks like they owe me some money.

Am stunned. they were probably taken with my first ever bridge camera.. .My Dad would have been so chuffed.

[shreds]

Sharon,

I think you should be chuffed too, but then again, we all know how good your work is here. Thanks for sharing it with us.

Perhaps this is a sign that you should do a little sideline in commercially selling some prints? Do you know any gallery owners?

[Shadowman]

Well....blow me down.

They were sales from an ancient Red Bubble Account. I don't even recognise the titles of the pieces.

Looks like they owe me some money.

Am stunned. they were probably taken with my first ever bridge camera.. .My Dad would have been so chuffed.

Different style back then, huh?

[Daisy Mae]

Different style back then, huh?

I'm sure that wasn't meant to be as nasty as it came across John.

Ian..thank you. Time I was more confident about putting my work forward.



I hope my style is different..otherwise I wouldn't be progressing would I?

It seems the works were purchased because my recent work had been seen but wasn't available and I have been asked to put more up for sale.

[Shadowman]

I'm sure that wasn't meant to be as nasty as it came across John.

Ian..thank you. Time I was more confident about putting my work forward.

I hope my style is different..otherwise I wouldn't be progressing would I?

It seems the works were purchased because my recent work had been seen but wasn't available and I have been asked to put more up for sale.

Wasn't meant to be. Does the smiley face not negate supposed nastiness?

[rpcrowe]

I have had a similar problem but, in a different way!

My dog rescue photos are very important to our Maltese Rescue California group. They give both our dogs and our organization exposure and can benefit both.

However we only gain a benefit if the image is identified as from Maltese Rescue California (I don't care if I get personal credit or not). I don't care about fees but would like for MRC to get some exposure from my work. I feel that I'm forced to place a Maltese Rescue California watermark on each image; although I really dislike watermarks in general!

A while ago it was suggested on CiC that the watermark should be Maltese Rescue California with the "M" in Maltese creatively done as a heart shape. I played with that watermark but, I think that I will just watermark our images with www.malteserescuecalifornia.com (which is our website). That way it would be easier for a person or organization to know how to contact us...

Google picks over many images posted on CiC for their images. My images of Malchi puppies are found at
http://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/s...Malchi+Puppies

line # 1 photos # 1,5,6
line # 2 photos # 4,9
line # 3 photos # 1,2
line # 5 photo # 11
line # 6 photo # 1
line # 12 photos # 5,8
line # 15 photo # 9
line # 16 photo # 2
line # 17 photo # 6
line # 18 photo # 9
line # 22 photo # 4
line # 27 photo # 7
line # 31 photo # 7

It wold certainly be nice if my organization could get some exposure out of these 18 images

[Adrian]

A degree of pragmatism is required with images on the web. If we post images up into public places, we do so presumably in the hope that they will be viewed. If we don't want any risk of them being stolen then we should either protect them (by using low resolution for example) or disfigure them (which defeats the object).

Watermarks are often used in a disfiguring way, but a clear embedded footer placement can be useful for locating the photographer for those who wish to purchase a high res. version.

[Daisy Mae]

Wasn't meant to be. Does the smiley face not negate supposed nastiness?

It's generally accepted that people can say the meanest of things and then stick a smiley after them so they can't be held accountable,

However I accept you saying now that you didn't mean it and there are no hard feelings.

The 'wink' smiley is the one generally used to denote humour or to ensure the person knows you were not being serious. I figured it is better to have me tell you that than a 7 foot mud wrestler on steroids who thinks you have dissed him!

[drjuice]

We've had this problem several times and have finally had one of our attorney members who does IP law write up two letters as templates for us to use (he actually did this on a pro bono basis for us):

a. A nastygram saying "You've copied ---------- from our website in violation of our intellectual property rights as defined in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act." Then it enumerates the particular sections of the US Code, etc. where they've done that. The last paragraphs enumerate the steps they need to take to prevent our suing their collective -ss--.

b. This nastygram starts with "On ---------, 2014, sent you a Registered Letter advising you that you were in violation ...." It ends with, "We suggested the steps you must take to prevent our suing you. It is our understanding that you do not intend to accede to our request to remove the protected intellectual property from ------------. Consequently, we have contacted ---------- (an intellectual property legal firm in their jurisdiction) and you will shortly hear from ------------ who is an IP attorney with --------------- (name of the firm again) about this matter."

That attorney is typically doing our IP work on a pro bono basis, it's more harrassing than anything else, but we've never had to do more than the two templates above to get the budguys to move the stolen IP off the particular web site.

Hope this helps.

v

[RustBeltRaw]

Watermarks are often used in a disfiguring way, but a clear embedded footer placement can be useful for locating the photographer for those who wish to purchase a high res. version.

Does anyone actually do that? Most of the parties who gank my work aren't making prints, but if they're too lazy to care about copyright law, I highly doubt they'll go through the effort of finding the photographer. Not unless they're also in a creative field, and even then, it appears to be a crap shoot.