So yet again I find that some one has uploaded my photos onto their face book page.
Why do these people seem to think that any thing on Flickr, or similar web sites, is public domain and free to do with, as you like.

So dose the collective of STW think this is polite enough?

It has come to my attention that you are using some of my photos on your face book page.
You may have added a tag that they are my photos, but that dose not change the fact that they are being used without my permission.
I must ask you to remove them as use on your page contravenes my copyright

can't you send a complaint directly to facebook?

if the pictures have such sensitive copyright why are they on a website which has next to no protection against theft?

Why do you need to be polite?

But then again if it's on FB it's unlikely to be for commercial purposes (correct me if I'm wrong), so might it not be free advertising for you?

Yes, seems polite enough. I would also hate my work getting ripped off however I'd look at the context – if they were using my words / images for a commercial enterprise I'd be down on them like a ton of bricks. But I'd feel differently if it was someone's personal page and they'd credited the work.

There is a facebook approach but I would like the perpetrator to do the right thing and remove them by their own accord.

It would have been nice for them to ask first before just taking my pictures and posting them.

why are they on a website which has next to no protection against theft

Also, don't most of those sites, including blogs plus Google, Yahoo etc, have clauses in the terms of the use that allow the site to do what they want with 'your' content? That's what puts me off posting portfolios on them. (I could be wrong…)

It's worth checking your Flickr settings. I've seen more than one person get all bent out of shape only to find that the way they have Flickr set up allows people to use their work.

Send them an invoice at NUJ rates and terms of payment.

http://www.londonfreelance.org/feesguide/index.php?language=en&country=UK&section=Photography&subsect=Online+use+of+photos&page=INDEX

Wait 90 days then small claims court.

if the pictures have such sensitive copyright why are they on a website which has next to no protection against theft?

If they're on the web, they can be copies as much as anyone lieks, regardless of the 'protection' on there.

But, copyright still applies.

but that dose

change it to "does"

I've had similar issues. I asked them to credit me with the photo, which they duly apologised and did. I've also had people (fellow mtbers) photoshop out my copyrite watermark and post the shot as their own. That was a slightly less polite request, they guy ended up paying twice the asking price for the shot.

Also, don't most of those sites, including blogs plus Google, Yahoo etc, have clauses in the terms of the use that allow the site to do what they want with 'your' content? That's what puts me off posting portfolios on them. (I could be wrong…)

They have to put stuff in about being able to legally republish the photos, because that's what you're asking them to do when you put them there. If they can't republish them, no-one can see them…

absolutely miket, but it doesn't take much sense to see that putting un-watermarked images on what is essentially a site for amateur photographers to share their work is no way to protect your assets if you are sensitive about their use.

the music industry tried throwing it's toys out of the pram before they (mostly) realised that sharing of user content on line is always going to happen and will inevitably contain their property. you can't stop it, you just have to find a profitable way of providing the content in a better way. Making a profit directly from the sale of intellectual property on the web is a dead art.

True dat

Sadly there isn't much you can do to prevent this happening.

Never been a problem for me, my photos aren't good enough to be ripped off, but I think the best approach may just be to roll with it:

– add a nice clear watermark to your images with your website address.
– when you find someone using your images then ask for a credit and a link back.
– explicitly state on your site that your images may be used by others provided that the watermark stays intact and a link back is given.
– ensure that your website has your contact details for people who want to buy and is the only place where hi-res copies are available for sale (or links to them on your chosen stock photography site).

It's a free advertising opportunity if you embed your website details.

You'll never stop people pirating them, so take advantage of the free advertising.

ask for a link to your site and send an invoice

We were surprised to find one of the pictures on my girlfriend's facebook was a half page picture in a national tabloid a few years back with a completely made up story involving a famous for 15 minutes friend of ours.

I think we got a grand off the agency that pulled it and a grand off the paper (who actually sent their cheque twice). 😀

Had same issues with my 15 year old daughter
Could not get no where with Face Book so she
stopped using it.

Depends what its for, to be honest? Is the photo of them? If so they have as much right to your image of them as you do.

I really think that some photographers are taking the proverbial charging £25 for event photos. If you want to take photos of me, fine, but if you want to charge people for them then I want my modelling fee. £200 please – pay up.

Is the photo of them? If so they have as much right to your image of them as you do.

Just not the way it works, dmjb4.

The "artist" is the photographer. The "subject" is entitled to **** all (generally).

Copyright lies solely and exclusively with the photographer. Subjects have no rights other than those covering libel and defamation of character.

aaaaarrrr..
why do some people not understand the concept of asking!!!
😡

dmjb4 – Member

Depends what its for, to be honest? Is the photo of them? If so they have as much right to your image of them as you do.

I really think that some photographers are taking the proverbial charging £25 for event photos. If you want to take photos of me, fine, but if you want to charge people for them then I want my modelling fee. £200 please – pay up.

I love this one. You get your lawyer and I'll get my lawyer and let the legal chaps sort it out, eh?

Re the OP, the letter sounds polite enough but I wouldn't expect the picture to be removed. If the picture has any value you should look at a legal way to recover money.

The security issue is interesting. How can you prevent theft of an image from the internet? Impossible I think.
I need the internet as a shopwindow for my pictures, and I have chosen flickr for this. I accept that pictures will be taken without permission and live with it, but all the pictures are a lower reolution and carry a watermark with my web address. This, however, didn't stop one site poaching the pic and cutting the watermark off before publishing it on their own page without crediting me, I found a further 800+ photos which the site had been using. They are currently being sued.

I need to publicise my pictures to sell them and accept a number will be stolen, but I make sure the photos are not the greatest resolution.

I have a photo of a guy taking a picture of one of my display prints which don't carry watermarks!!! FFS!

Good luck.

Could you give us a link to the pics?

Would make the thread more interesting and possibly allow more informed comment.

I can't help but think if you took an unsolicited photo of me, and I found it, and I put it somewhere like a Facebook page saying "thanks grahamh for the photo" I would feel quite happy with it. If you wanted to protect your work, in order to profit from it I assume, but didn't want me to basically advertise it and say I liked it, I would be a bit pissed.
If they are clearly a business for you, like an event photo, then fair enough (the only cycling photos I have on my facebook are paid for event photos, not sure if I am allowed to use them like that now I think of it, but I did pay for them) I would expect them to be paid for.
If it is just a hobby, and you are publishing them on the internet, and they are not being used for commercial processes, and they have acknowledged you as the photographer I am not sure what the problem is. They are letting more people see the photos you are proud of?
Sell them, fine.
Publish them for all to see, fine.
Publish them for all to see, as long as they are in the right place? Strikes me as more hassle than it's worth.
Do agree that they are your photos though so feel free to ignore me 🙂

Depends what its for, to be honest? Is the photo of them? If so they have as much right to your image of them as you do

epic fail

Depends what its for, to be honest? Is the photo of them? If so they have as much right to your image of them as you do

epic fail

How so?

Someone on here is getting annoyed someone is using their photos without consent or providing credit. I just wanted to check that if the photo was of a person, that the photographer had asked that person for their consent and provided credit.

If you want to make a moral argument, you need to be consistent in order to gain popular support.

Most people consider that the only thing wrong with removing watermarks from photos taken of themselves in public places is that the watermark, and sometimes the photographer, was there in the first place.

As to legal comments, I note another post above covered that better than I can. Suing your customers is always a surefire winner. Worked great for the music business. Once selling cd singles for £4, now doing downloads for 29p in an attempt to compete with free. It also worked great for SCO, who, as with some of you above, attempted to charge the community for the communities own work and imagery. SCO is now in liquidation and its former Directors are in court themselves.

when i type my full name into google images.. i come across some guys photobase or flickr account with about 4 of my pics in it.

dont have a clue who he is.

If you don't want your photos used on the net then don't leave them on there is a usable form. Small low res images, set security to private on the likes of Flicka, water mark them.

You'll never stop people pirating them, so take advantage of the free advertising.

very defeatist

my pics are listed under one of the standards as copyright, useable with credit to me, no mods.

I have had 2 organisations ask to use my pics so far and I have agreed in the terms as above.

It's very clear under each pic thats what it is.

If an image comes up on google images etc it's not infringing copyright just doesn't mean you can download it and do what you want.

dmjb4

Someone on here is getting annoyed someone is using their photos without consent or providing credit. I just wanted to check that if the photo was of a person, that the photographer had asked that person for their consent and provided credit.

The photographer doesn't need to ask. They can take pictures of who they want (mostly) in a public place. Whether people think that is right or wrong is another matter, but that is the law. As above, so long as it's not used to defame etc… How do you think paparazzi stay in business?

Most people consider that the only thing wrong with removing watermarks from photos taken of themselves in public places is that the watermark, and sometimes the photographer, was there in the first place.

Well "most people" would be wrong again. If you don't have permission from the copyright holder (the photographer) then YOU would be breaking the law.

G – what's the issue here…

1. Not asking
2. You don't want the photo reproduced elsewhere
3. You are missing out on revenue for your photos
4. Photos nothing to do with them and they've just taken something that looks nice
5. other

I'd think having your work proliferated only helps to spread the word on how good a photographer you are. I may be missing the point though

Well "most people" would be wrong again. If you don't have permission from the copyright holder (the photographer) then YOU would be breaking the law.

Legalities aside – does anyone honestly think the person referred to in the OP has done anything morally wrong?

Legalities aside – does anyone honestly think the person referred to in the OP has done anything morally wrong?

yes

Well I don't – and I have paid for event photos from photographers before btw. But if people make images available on flickr they should make them low enough res or watermarked so that if people want them they will pay for them.

Eg http://www.photobreton.com

I have a mate who would never have bought the pics from there, but he did save the crappy low-res watermarked one and put it as his facebook profile pic – which they don't even bother trying to stop you doing.

It always seems to be amateurs taking photos that aren't really good enough to sell that get upset about this stuff.

Legalities aside – does anyone honestly think the person referred to in the OP has done anything morally wrong?

Thief blameless in taking unlocked bike shocker

It always seems to be amateurs taking photos that aren't really good enough to sell that get upset about this stuff.

Oooh, did you hear that OP? He said you were crap. Now let's see your pics and you can prove him wrong.

Or would they fall foul of STW rules on posting 'adult' content?

How so?

Someone on here is getting annoyed someone is using their photos without consent or providing credit. I just wanted to check that if the photo was of a person, that the photographer had asked that person for their consent and provided credit.

you do not have "a right to your image". By and large a photographer does not have to gain consent for taking a photograph of someone in a public place nor provide them with a credit.