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

So becasue I'm not very good it's ok to nick things? Weird way of thinkgin, you have

Bushwacked,
The issue is people not asking, just assuming that it is ok
to just take as they will.

I never had this problem with 35mm!
If oneone liked one of my photos they had to ask to borrow
the slide or negative to make a copy.

If you make it easy and obvious how to ask permission then yes, on your side, they should. Realty is though, if it is tricky, not obvious or there is no carrott (better res picture?) people often won't. Not saying they are right but it is a widespread mindset and needs to be worked with or you are on a frustrating hiding to nothing.
IMHO 🙂

Share the love… unless it is your job of course.

Loving the yelps of "sue him!" from certain people on here. If the person ripping off your photo hasn't made any money from it, and hasn't cost you any lost revenue, what exactly is the point? Throw good money after bad to prove your moral superiority? Just tell him to ask for permission in the future and move on…

So becasue I'm not very good it's ok to nick things? Weird way of thinkgin, you have

No, if you haven't thought through your business model and set your flickr account up properly then don't start whining on the internet about potential customers?

It's just an observation that eg proper professional photography companies like the one I posted don't seem to mind people saving the low res watermarked image (otherwise they could easily disable the right click-save image) – maybe they see it as free advertising?

Again, I happily paid for a couple of their images, even though it didn't seem cheap. But if someone who wasn't going to buy the full res image downloads a low res one and sticks it on their facebook page (and credits you) – what have you lost exactly?

I love all the references to stealing a bike etc – yeah that parallel really works doesn't it. 🙄

G – Suppose they should ask but I'd like to think if I was the subject of a photo that I could use it since it is of me.

To flip things on its head, I know in Hong Kong the data protection laws over the there (based on britsh legal system) stipulate that a photo of a person can be classed as personal data meaning that in certain circumstances the person taking the photo could potentially be sued if they don't have permission from the subject…

(otherwise they could easily disable the right click-save image)

this will discourage only the most naive…

G – Suppose they should ask but I'd like to think if I was the subject of a photo that I could use it since it is of me.

As the subject, you have no legal right to your image. Copyright remains with the photographer.

To flip things on its head, I know in Hong Kong the data protection laws over the there (based on britsh legal system) stipulate that a photo of a person can be classed as personal data meaning that in certain circumstances the person taking the photo could potentially be sued if they don't have permission from the subject…

There's the possibility over here that photographs could class as personal data, but it's never been tested in court. If the photographer just took a random photo of you in the street and had no other info about you, I doubt that would be the case.

Where it's a grey area is with CCTV images. For example, my employer has my photo on file along with other personal details; in theory, my images on CCTV could be linked to my other data and so those images could come under the Data protection act. I don't know that this has been tested in court, however.

this will discourage only the most naive…

Believe it or not lots of people wouldn't know how to do a screengrab then crop the image.

Imagine if this was a piece of music – you put up a short 1 minute low bitrate mp3 on your bands website to show people what you sound like. Someone writing a blog reposts the clip, with a link back to the band website.

Isn't that the whole **** point of posting it in the first place and gives you free advertising/exposure? Honestly, acting like a whiny little bitch isn't really a good way to help encourage future business (yes I am in a bad mood).

Mike – agreed – legally. But if I was out on a ride and someone took my photo to record the fun had – I'd sort of be a bit miffed if I couldn't keep a copy of a photo of me.

I know a photo of me was once taken out on a ride and I got a copy of the low res version no problem but decided to get and pay for a copy of the high res one and it now sits on my desk at work.

I know a photo of me was once taken out on a ride and I got a copy of the low res version no problem but decided to get and pay for a copy of the high res one and it now sits on my desk at work.

Yeah but what they obviously should have done instead is make the low res one freely available to you, but then tell you you weren't allowed to use it without paying for it and that you had contravened their copyright – that would have been a much better way to encourage you to buy the image.

Why won't the OP show us his pictures? Does he think we're going to put them on our facebooks?

this will discourage only the most naive…

Believe it or not lots of people wouldn't know how to do a screengrab then crop the image.

No need for a screen grab.

Simply drag the image onto the address bar.

Or go to Tools->Page Info->Media (in Firefox) and you'll see all the images on the page.

Or just don't run Javascript on that page and they can't block your right-click.

Basically, anyone who has used the internet for more than ten minutes and is remotely technically competent can bypass a right-click blocker without really thinking about it.

I definitely agree that the best way is to try to make the best of it as a marketing opportunity, rather than fighting it. Fairly obvious watermarking on larger images and request that anyone using the image provides credit and linkback.

Imagine if this was a piece of music – you put up a short 1 minute low bitrate mp3 on your bands website to show people what you sound like. Someone writing a blog reposts the clip, with a link back to the band website.

That would class as fair use.

Isn't that the whole **** point of posting it in the first place and gives you free advertising/exposure? Honestly, acting like a whiny little bitch isn't really a good way to help encourage future business (yes I am in a bad mood).

But, legally, he can do what he wants as it's his photo. Whether that's good from a business point of view is not relevant.

I'm a big fan of giving stuff away for free, but that also needs to come with the protection that copyright gives. For example, a photographer takes photos at a gay wedding, and puts them online as examples of her work. She'd probably be more than happy for people who were at the wedding to share those low res images on Facebook, as it's unlikely to lose her any further sales and even if it does, just one extra booking would make up for it. But, what if her photo was taken and used on a homophobic website or leaflet?

But, legally, he can do what he wants as it's his photo.

I don't really care about what's legal – I care about what's reasonable and sensible behaviour. There are many many instances where people don't choose to enforce the strict letter of the law because it makes no sense and just makes them look like a petty ****.

But, what if her photo was taken and used on a homophobic website or leaflet?

Or, what if it was used on someone's facebook page, AND FULLY CREDITED TO THE PHOTOGRAPHER? Imagine the outrage.

iDave, Is that one of your pics or did you you seek the appropriate copyright to re-publish it? 😆

i stole it from some creative sap who leaves photos lying around t'interweb

Basically, anyone who has used the internet for more than ten minutes and is remotely technically competent can bypass a right-click blocker without really thinking about it.

I know many people who use the internet all the time who would struggle to work it out – the majority of the people I work with I reckon.

Hey – repeat thread! You did all this not long ago Graham!

🙂

I know a photo of me was once taken out on a ride and I got a copy of the low res version no problem but decided to get and pay for a copy of the high res one and it now sits on my desk at work.

You have a picture of YOURSELF on your desk???? Strewth

I know many people who use the internet all the time who would struggle to work it out – the majority of the people I work with I reckon.

Fair enough, though I would postulate that they perhaps fail my "remotely technically competent" clause, as they are unaware what their basic browser menu contains. 😕

However I suspect even with that limitation, if they saw a picture they wanted and it blocked the right-click menu then they would just google it or ask a more technically-minded friend. Either way it just wouldn't present anything more than a slight speed bump.

How do you stand legally if you've copyrighted your own image? surely then if a photographer uses it they're in the brown sticky stuff?
I can't believe a photographer can whine about one of his subjects displaying a picture of themselves.Surely the disputed image wouldn't have happened without either party?
If they're using it for financial gain or self promotion then that's another matter, but whining about having it on facebook as a profile pic or part of an album……..petty in the extreme!

How do you stand legally if you've copyrighted your own image?

you cannot

How do you stand legally if you've copyrighted your own image? surely then if a photographer uses it they're in the brown sticky stuff?

You can't copyright 'your own image'.

Whoever takes the picture can copyright a particular picture of you, but you don't own a picture just because you happen to be in it.

Joe

If they're using it for financial gain or self promotion then that's another matter, but whining about having it on facebook as a profile pic or part of an album……..petty in the extreme!

Absolutely – our wedding photographer had digital copies of all our pictures available online, but she still had the cheek to try and charge actual money for them, even though they were pictures of us and quite clearly should be free.

I just ripped them all off and stuck them on facebook. 🙄

It's worth remembering that putting stuff on facebook signs a lot of rights away also, I'd have less issue with someone taking a photo and putting it on a webpage/blog than uploading it to facebook.

But surely you'd already paid the photographer anyway?
Back in't day that would get you an album full of pics.
Any rellies that wanted copies would flick through your album and order what they wanted.
Isn't that the same here? You're showing the pics to your friends,rellies and whathave you via facebook and if they want a decent print then it's off to contact the photographer?

Lets face it, you could order quality prints from a photographer then use a good scanner to copy the lot.Surely they'd be good enough to hang in the average house in a frame.
The only difference in this case is that the photographer concerned has seen them!

It's worth remembering that putting stuff on facebook signs a lot of rights away also

people can only sign away their own rights, not anyone else's

But surely you'd already paid the photographer anyway?
Back in't day that would get you an album full of pics.

Yep paid for attending and for our copies. But I believe they generally make money from friends and rellies wanting their own prints.

And yep, got an album full of our favourite pics. But that's a limited selection of what she took.

if they want a decent print then it's off to contact the photographer?

At least two of my friends have just printed off the digital images rather than getting a nice quality print from the photographer.

people can only sign away their own rights, not anyone else's

I think by uploading to facebook you're stating that you have the rights or permission to upload that content. It is therefore reasonable of Facebook to assume that it can use it as stated in it's terms and conditions. So whilst not directly signing away someone else's rights that can be the end result

So whilst not directly signing away someone else's rights that can be the end result

you have to click a box asserting that you own the copyright to the photos, and it's breaking the conditions you signed up to if you don't

does the OP not join in on Friday A&A then?
or any other image related threads?

Noop Olly, none of my photos are sexy enough for the Friday A&A.
As for image related threads, that depends on the subject.

Finally got asked for permission, and given, so I am happy now..

One thing I dont understand is why when I tried to approach
Face Book regarding someone had stolen my 15 year old daughters
identity and photos they done nothing about it and not even one
reply.

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.

Not true.

The general legal advice currently provided to photographers by your own industry is to get consent, preferably in written form, whenever possible. Failure to obtain a signed model release will "at least" impair the commercial use of any images, as photo libraries, agencies, etc will not accept any images of a recognisable person without the legally required release.

Thats your own industry group!

Bottom line is if you want to make money by using other people, you have to obtain their consent first.

From a moral stance, you cannot argue with this.

dmjb4

No, it is true.

You don't understand what you have just quoted.

The key bit is the word "commercial"

What it is saying is that many agencies wouldn't buy a photo off you for use in an ad say, or other commercial work, because they would be worried that the model might not like being associated with the product being advertised and might sue for defamation. It doesn't say that they absolutely can't do it.

All this advice is about is how to maximise the commercial value of images.

Also, you can shoot whoever you like(ish) in a public place for editorial use.

The fact that you don't like this doesn't make it not true.

Interestingly some stock libraries now secretly watermark their images and if they find them being used without payment they send an invoice. This sort of action is also likely to become more common (and more available to individuals) due to software like this:

http://www.tineye.com/faq

So, if you think there's no chance of getting caught and no comeback if you steal other peoples work, think again.