Home · Register · Software · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Pro Digital Corner | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

has anyone
  
 
R.H. Johnson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · has anyone


had their images used (for sale or posted for nefarious purposes) on the web unauthorized? i was building a website and decided to do a web image search out of curiosity. actually, i was investigating watermarking images embedded and visual for copyright protection. when i discovered several of my images had been stolen and were being sold for commercial purposes.

the idea that anyone would steal intellectual property for unauthorized distribution is unnerving. the simple minded solution 'don't post any of your images on the web, if you don't want them stolen' for a business is a non-solution and paradoxical at best. businesses selling photographic services or prints need to display a portfolio for prospective clients. therefore it is a requirement to post sample images on their websites simply to advertise the business. a few years ago it was a prerequisite requirement to have a website with a body of your images to even be considered to become a Getty Images fellow (this may have changed i haven't contacted Getty in a couple of years).

what would be a viable solution to block images from being downloaded? or does such technology/software exist?




Nov 25, 2016 at 09:45 PM
c.d.embrey
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · has anyone


R.H. Johnson wrote:
what would be a viable solution to block images from being downloaded? or does such technology/software exist?



Big Ugly Watermarks or don't post. If they ain't Big & Ugly the same software that allows you to remove telephone posts/wires will remove a timid watermark.

Blocking Right Click is a waste of time. Check-out this video on how easy it is to download Blocked images.





Nov 26, 2016 at 01:04 AM
dmcphoto
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · has anyone


Unfortunately the Internet has made image theft "normal". Even companies that make their own images of products they sell are constantly having them stolen by other companies that sell the same or similar products.

Digimarc has a product that invisibly embeds identification information in images. From their website:

"Digimarc for Images allows hobbyists, professionals and businesses to add an imperceptible identifier to individual photos and other images prior to distribution. The technology is resilient, capable of continuing to communicate ownership rights even after:

file format changes
encryption and decryption
editing and cropping

Your information goes wherever your images do. Find your work, and ensure potential customers can find you.
"

Digimarc has a web crawler that finds your images and reports where they are used to you. The problem is, once you find that your images are illegally used in hundreds or thousands of places with new ones popping up every month your full time job becomes writing cease and desist letters. It's not practical.

Also, you can use Google image search to find your own images online. You point Google to your image (either by uploading it or giving Google the URL) and it will find that image wherever it is. Sometimes the results are not 100% accurate and Google will return similar images, but it's generally pretty good. The problem is the same as above, plus you have to spend time searching.

The only reasonable solution IMO is to make your images look awful with a big watermark or post reasonably small images online. Making a quality print from an 800 pixel wide JPEG isn't going to happen, so if you sell prints online theft won't affect what you're doing. Of course that won't prevent illegal use on various websites, which has become something you just have to accept if you post images online without big ugly watermarks. IMO those big ugly watermarks probably hurt any business you do more than the online thefts.



Nov 26, 2016 at 01:43 AM
Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · has anyone


And of course taking legal action against someone half-way around the world is time-consuming and the costs involved probably many times your financial loss from the image theft in the first place.


Nov 26, 2016 at 02:11 AM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · has anyone


Yes ... PM Sent

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1153656/0

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/905375/0

Cease & desist letters are a "free pass" for the offenders and imo are a waste of time when you have been commercially exploited. Rather, understanding that there is significantly more "teeth" in the DMCA that goes beyond cease & desist (that most folks have never taken the time to learn of) can be significantly more valuable.

C&D's have more merit (imo) for insolvent bloggers that don't have any real $$$ to be worthwile. Copyright infringement and DMCA violations (while similar in spirit @ wronged) are structured rather different, and the criteria for winning an award is not the same. As such, each have diff levels of awards, relative to different sets of criteria. If you've truly been violated for commercial gain by others, it is worth the time / effort to educate yourself on them and / or enlist someone who specializes in them.



Nov 26, 2016 at 02:37 AM
R.H. Johnson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · has anyone


PM replied.


Nov 26, 2016 at 03:35 AM
R.H. Johnson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · has anyone


dmcphoto, The problem is, once you find that your images are illegally used in hundreds or thousands of places with new ones popping up every month your full time job becomes writing cease and desist letters. It's not practical.

every time digimark gets a hit on your photo you pay a fee. at the scale in your quote one would go broke paying digimark, lol. i've looked at digimark but have not made a decision if they are the solution yet.



Nov 26, 2016 at 03:53 AM
Milan Hutera
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · has anyone


Yes, many times. Even by print magazines. I've dealth with two magazines this year alone. Use a watermark. If someone removes the watermark, he's intentionally violating your intellectual property rights and that is very helpful if you decide to sue them.

Generally it's a good idea to write to the violators and tell them exactly what laws they've broken. Then you can either ask them to take the photos down or ask them to pay you for the unauthorised usage of your work. If they refuse, then find a good lawyer that deals with intellectual property and let him do the talking. Of course this will cost some serious money so if you go this path, be prepared for a lawsuit, unless you want to pay the lawyer from your own pocket.

The other way to deal with it is to leave it alone. You just have to decide if it's worth your time, money and effort.



Nov 26, 2016 at 08:34 AM
next390
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · has anyone


Thank you for the video. It will be useful to me. Good luck to all!
lyft customer service phone number


Edited on Jan 01, 2017 at 10:19 PM · View previous versions



Nov 26, 2016 at 12:01 PM
Snopchenko
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · has anyone


My image was "lifted" once but when I told the editor of the paper I was working in at the time about it, he said: "Yeah, and so what can we do?" That was the one case that I know of. Maybe there have been more, but I just wouldn't be flattering myself by thinking that my images are really worth stealing.

My wife, on the other hand, has encountered this multiple times. One of her articles (chock full of pics - that's how she tracked it) was lifted and reprinted by sites over the world (without credit and/or link) - as far afield as Lithuania (ok... that isn't very far off) and Japan. Her images have been pilfered routinely - a few times by a fellow Internet publication, no less. She even called the editor - she knows him - out on this one, but he chickened out of the talk as soon as she said "WTF?"



Nov 26, 2016 at 01:19 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



ggreene
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · has anyone


dmcphoto wrote:
Of course that won't prevent illegal use on various websites, which has become something you just have to accept if you post images online without big ugly watermarks.


This is the reality of the situation. The internet and digital technology allow photographers to have a worldwide audience now but it comes at the cost of losing control of your images. Just the way it is.



Nov 26, 2016 at 02:24 PM
cameron12x
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · has anyone


gdanmitchell wrote:
Don't post larger than you need to — even when you know that your work would look better larger.

Always including copyright information in the file data.

Always embed copyright information in the image in a way that is visual.

Place watermarks either subtle or somewhat obvious within the image area itself.

Add branding information to photographs, including margins with name and URL.

Do not post images with very high quality when compressing for upload.

Understand that your best efforts cannot completely stop the theft and unauthorized use of your work. Each photographer must find the best balance for her/himself between the benefits of sharing work and
...Show more

Thanks Dan... this is the most comprehensive answer to the issue.



Nov 26, 2016 at 04:22 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · has anyone


Sorry, but this reply shows your lack of understanding regarding DMCA ... specifically regarding attorneys fees that are recoverable.

The advice you are suggesting is you have to have deep pockets and it isn't worthwhile ... that's just not true, depending on which aspect of the law was violated, as there are multiple criteria in the DMCA.

You can't just lump it all together for a simplistic answer.


The fact that a ton of folks just toss their hands in the air ... out of ignorance ... doesn't mean that you should do the same. DMCA really have has components to it that are more viable than all the "we give up" folks have even considered.


Milan Hutera wrote:
Yes, many times. Even by print magazines. I've dealth with two magazines this year alone. Use a watermark. If someone removes the watermark, he's intentionally violating your intellectual property rights and that is very helpful if you decide to sue them.

Generally it's a good idea to write to the violators and tell them exactly what laws they've broken. Then you can either ask them to take the photos down or ask them to pay you for the unauthorised usage of your work. If they refuse, then find a good lawyer that deals with intellectual property and let him
...Show more


Edited on Nov 26, 2016 at 07:14 PM · View previous versions



Nov 26, 2016 at 07:03 PM
Milan Hutera
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · has anyone


RustyBug wrote:
Sorry, but this reply shows your lack of understanding regarding DMCA.



How exactly? Sorry but every intellectual property law in european union states what I wrote. You have a right to be credited for the work with your name. You have a right to decide if the work is going to be published or not. You have a right to be compensated financially for your work. Watermark or other means of identifying you as the author of a photo should not be removed without your approval. It is forbiden to remove it, even in part.

So please enlighten me.



Nov 26, 2016 at 07:12 PM
R.H. Johnson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · has anyone


RB, i'm following your links ATPIT to get a better understanding of policy and procedure concerning DCMA and the legalities and actions involved.




Edited on Nov 26, 2016 at 08:53 PM · View previous versions



Nov 26, 2016 at 07:13 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · has anyone




Milan Hutera wrote:
How exactly? Sorry but every intellectual property law in european union states what I wrote. You have a right to be credited for the work with your name. You have a right to decide if the work is going to be published or not. You have a right to be compensated financially for your work. Watermark or other means of identifying you as the author of a photo should not be removed without your approval. It is forbiden to remove it, even in part.

So please enlighten me.


Attorneys fees can be part of the award ... not out of pocket.



Nov 26, 2016 at 07:15 PM
Milan Hutera
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · has anyone


RustyBug wrote:
Attorneys fees can be part of the award ... not out of pocket.



Of course they can can and they are every single time here in EU. But lawyers generally don't work on a credit so you have to pay them. In some parts of the world, the lawsuits can last years (like here in the heart of Europe). As a lawyer, would you work for free for that period of time and it's not even certain you will win and thus will be compensated by the violator?

Personally I don't understand your attack towards me. I simply laid out all the possibilities for OP. A) he can deal with it himself. That's what I did several times this year and was financially compensated accordingly, taking into consideration what was stolen and how it was used (at least in my book). B) he can ask for legal counsel, which can and most probably will cost some money upfront. C.) he can leave it alone (that's always a possibility).



Nov 26, 2016 at 07:23 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · has anyone


Sorry, I didn't mean it to come across as an attack (writing from phone, so I was a bit too brief)

My point is that folks giving advice of "it's not worth it" because of the attorney's fees involved (imo, it tells) haven't given full / proper credence to the way that the DMCA is structured. Attorney's can & will (varies by attorney, varies by case) work on contingency when their fees are built into the award, above and beyond the violation award ... as is the case with certain criteria in the DMCA.

Telling people to "give up" before they even start ... well, it just doesn't sound much like really trying to help your fellow FM'ers. The decisions / merits of a given case will of course be between the attorney and the client, and without divulging (privacy) details regarding multiple cases of FM'ers ... I absolutely KNOW of awards that have been provided for folks that I have encouraged while others were saying "it's not worth it" and "you'll have to have pay for it up front, etc." ... "it's better to just give up" or "what's a guy to do" or "that's just the way it is".

Simply put ... no effort will get you no result. Rather than educating our fellow FM'ers on how to actually achieve results, too many folks jump on the bandwagon of "it's not worth it" when they don't even know the difference in the Chapters of DMCA themselves.

Again, apologies for coming across hyper-critical my bad. You just caught me in a moment of I get tired of folks telling our fellow FM'ers ... in essence, "don't try" ... when the DMCA has been provided to our benefit. I know you are on the "good guys" side of things. We just have to learn how to better use it, and I believe that this will only occur through encouragement to learn / proceed / where to find help vs. telling folks "not worth it".

Granted, everyone will have to come to their own determination regarding what is / isn't worth it for them (variety of factors) ... but I don't believe that we can make that determination for them. Rather we could / would / should arm them with the assistance that we can provide so that they have a chance to prevail ... vs. put your tail between your legs and suck it up because "it's not worth it".






Nov 26, 2016 at 08:07 PM
R.H. Johnson
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · has anyone


RB, per your provided links and information it may take me a couple of days to absorb the volume of information listed and to research said topics. thus far it looks like i am going to have to:

1. perform a timely registration of my entire body of works that will be published via my website or anywhere else on the web.

2. add the year when the image was first published to my existing watermark.

RB, this is a fascinating topic. i intend to be proactive and not take a pacifist approach in dealing the unauthorized nefarious use of my images. i thank you in advance for your valuable input on said topic.

R. Hiram Johnson II, the Photographer
Master of Light Studios



Nov 26, 2016 at 08:59 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · has anyone


+1 @ fascinating = not simplistic, so it does behoove us to learn a bit more on the matter. Whether that is for the purpose of developing a prevention / protective strategy or for assessing / determining pursuit strategies.

It is definitely not a "one size fits all" issue, so getting "one size fits all" advice seems a bit folly, imo. Both copyright and DMCA have multiple "legs" to the issues / criteria. Granted many folks go merrily along without consideration for them, but the way I see it, if we're gonna complain about it, we probably should be willing to do something about it ... not the least of which is study the matter beyond relying on the "he said / she said" advice of cyber-wanna-be lawyers (such as myself ).

GL HTH




Nov 26, 2016 at 10:13 PM
1
       2       end






FM Forums | Pro Digital Corner | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username     Reset password