[Closed] Lumilite have nicked my photo

I'd be asking them to take it down pronto.

Are you sure it's the same photo? The trees in the background look different to me, there's no shadow on the middle back of the path in their shot and the exposures are quite different unless they've photoshopped it.

looks like a different shot to me. Tree in the middle doesn't have the same branches across it

Different photo, bush on RHS is different, you have light from the sky theirs doesn't.

The website beam shot is from one of trouts lights , the shot he's posted is the dx/lumilite/bastid

Carlosq has it right it is one of my shot but not even the shot I took of the bastid light .

Not sure which shot as I have so many in those woods

Send them an invoice for the use of the photo.

If the photo they have used is not of the light they are advertising then you could go for getting them into trouble with the various official bodies but me I'd just send 'em a big invoice.

what TJ said - invoice for use of image to date + a request to take it down asap

yeah get some dosh, how crap is that to steal a mans photo.

how crap is that to steal a mans photo.

How crap is it to steal [b]ANOTHER LIGHT MANUFACTURERS[/b] photo.

Get them to take it down But if they have taken there light
to the same place (hard to believe) you cant say nothing
unless its was taken on your land without your permission.

* cease & desist
* damages
* misrepresentation
* fraud
* consumer protection

blah blah blah. Get them by the balls, or at least some dosh out of them.

So what's the executive summary with Lumilite? They buy DX lights and sell them to punters who know no better for 60% more using a shonky website? Is that the business model?

(Bgger! - wish I'd thought of that - 🙁 No need to buy in bulk as DX have improved their delivery, operate a bit of a kanban system and order a few more when you are down to your last couple - money for old rope)

Goodness me. Thats really bad !.

I reckon its one of your photos, but that its been photoshopped.

I would hope that the law is on your side, but actually getting anything done about it ?.

Well, you can only try. On principal I hope you sort it to your satisfaction.

Can't believe it 🙄

Reckon its worth an STW boycott myself.

Good Luck

L.

Post deleted, coz I did a reading of the thread FAIL!

Sorry Trout

TMM no I am saying the top shot is a shot I took of the Bastid

they have used another shot from my collection as a bastid beamshot

That's awful. I hope you sue them, they go bust and all their employees die. In protest i'm gonna turn off all the lights in the house for 20 seconds. Who's with me?

Trout, people seem to have trouble reading what you wrote. I'll try to explain.
Lumilite have used what looks like one of Trout's pics to advertise their DX light. But the pic they have used is not of the DX beam, but of a Trout light beam. Trout has posted the real picture of the DX beam, showing that it is less bright than his light. When he wrote 'cos this is', followed by a picture, what he meant was 'I know that the picture they have used does not show the DX beam, because the picture immediately following these words is of the DX beam and is clearly different from the one on Lumilite's site'

Hope this helps.

trout - post a pic of one of your lights beamshots in those woods so people can see what you mean - at the moment it's a little ambiguous (they've used your beamshot but NOT your beamshot of the DX light)...

Or, what he just said!

ok I think it is this shot

[IMG] [/IMG]

resized to this one

[IMG] http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa46/amticoman/DX%20LIGHT/lumilite.jp g" target="_blank">http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa46/amticoman/DX%20LIGHT/lumilite.jp g"/> [/IMG]

AND IT IS A lIBERATOR SHOT 👿

Trout

Where have they get the picture from...is it on a flikr site somewhere with a creative commons licence, in which case AIUI anyone can use it for anything. If it is your pic and they have used it without your permission then ask for advice on the Talk Photography forums...(it's a photogs version of STW). They'll sort you out for legal advice, appropriate rates to claim etc.

It is on my photobucket account but will have been posted on numerous forums in the past .

I am not over bothered but for the fact it is not a Magicshine beam so false infomation

Ah - Photobucket - I'm not familiar with that but

Terms & Conditions - my bold - is this relevant?

6.1 Photobucket does not claim any ownership rights in the text, files, images, photos, video, sounds, musical works, works of authorship, applications, or any other materials (collectively, "Content") that you post on or through the Photobucket Services. By displaying or publishing ("posting") any Content on or through the Photobucket Services, you hereby grant to Photobucket and other users a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, worldwide, limited license to use, modify, delete from, add to, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and translate such Content, including without limitation distributing part or all of the Site in any media formats through any media channels, except Content marked "private" will not be distributed outside the Photobucket Services. Photobucket and/or other [b]Users may copy, print or display publicly available Content outside of the Photobucket Services, including without limitation, via the Site or third party websites or applications (for example, services allowing Users to order prints of Content or t-shirts and similar items containing Content)[/b]. After you remove your Content from the Photobucket Website we will cease distribution as soon as practicable, and at such time when distribution ceases, the license to such Content will terminate. If after we have distributed your Content outside the Photobucket Website you change the Content’s privacy setting to "private," we will cease any further distribution of such "private" Content outside the Photobucket Website as soon as practicable.

It is on my photobucket account but will have been posted on numerous forums in the past .

I am not over bothered but for the fact it is not a Magicshine beam so false infomation

fair point...it might be a "mistake" on their part...I'm sure they'll quickly correct when you point it (and this thread) out to them - but do some screengrabs of their website with your image on it before you point it out. If they are using it to make a false claim re effectiveness of lights I'm sure trading standards would be interested too. Consider they may also be using your image in printed material as well.

There is a bit of software somewhere that examines your jpgs, and then searches the internet to see if someone else is using your jpg...can't remember where I've seen it now.

If any company uses an image of mine without payment or a credit or permission, then an invoice follows very quickly followed by small claims court action as required.

I notice it's happed with Jack White, the US military, of all institutions, used one of his songs in the US Superbowl commercials without his knowledge and he's hopping mad - not helped by the fact that he's against the war!

Claiming one things when it's another is a misrepresenation of the facts and it's an offence. Your local Trading Standards can avise you if you wished to use this as part of your court case.

Ah! Just seen the post above in the typing-time. You uploaded it and they can use it by the look of the terms and conditions.
Best to contact them me thinks!

Ti29er - Member

If any company uses an image of mine without payment or a credit or permission, then an invoice follows very quickly followed by small claims court action as required.

oh yes definitely - so would I...but you need to be careful when using photohosting sites that you aren't inadvertently granting permission for someone to use it.

[url= http://www.tineye.com/faq ]TINEYE[/url]
Bam!
Blow!
Biff!

Typing that crosses in the time it takes to type!

Here's your software, as requested, Sir. You could also look into watermarking your images.

[Edit] Doh. Was making a point about misrepresentation and then noticed I'd skimmed over the same point earlier in the thread.

Wow. Photobucket's T&Cs have put my jaw on the floor somewhat. Upload an image and kiss goodbye to your rights. So there's your invoice up in smoke.

Anyway - awesome, I'm off to get some stock for print work...

I notice also that Photobucket have a big section of Hello Kitty images. So I'm allowed to use any Hello Kitty images on there for any purpose, am I? I think not.

The next bit of their T&Cs is:

"[i]6.2 You represent and warrant that: (i) you own the Content posted by you on or through the Photobucket Services or otherwise have the right to grant the license set forth in this section, (ii) the posting and use of your Content on or through the Photobucket Services does not violate the privacy rights, publicity rights, copyrights, contract rights, intellectual property rights or any other rights of any person, and (iii) the posting of your Content on the Site does not result in a breach of contract between you and a third party. You agree to pay for all royalties, fees, and any other monies owing any person by reason of Content you post on or through the Photobucket Services.[/i]"

Right, so no-one's allowed to upload Hello Kitty images. Yet they actively promote them.

Are they on crack?

It would seem so...

onewheelgood - Member

Trout, people seem to have trouble reading what you wrote. I'll try to explain.
Lumilite have used what looks like one of Trout's pics to advertise their DX light. But the pic they have used is not of the DX beam, but of a Trout light beam. Trout has posted the real picture of the DX beam, showing that it is less bright than his light. When he wrote 'cos this is', followed by a picture, what he meant was 'I know that the picture they have used does not show the DX beam, because the picture immediately following these words is of the DX beam and is clearly different from the one on Lumilite's site'

Hope this helps.

Onewheelgood, I hope your premier membership was bestowed as an honorary award as you are prince among men, succinct funny and useful. How many threads do I read where I think 99 % of the posts are showing us that the poster either hasn't read the OP correctly or just cant read or is just a moron. I await some further responses to prove me right..

To be fair, at least I'm discouraged from trawling for stock by the fact that it's an utterly horrible site. Pages with white text on yellow backgrounds, purple text on blue backgrounds, and it's the slowest-rendering site I've seen in a loooong time. Virtually unusable on a netbook.

I'm mystified by all their blatant copyright abuses though. Section upon section of copyrighted material uploaded by all sorts of users, all promoted in labelled sections by Photobucket.

Surely any lawyer with even one active brain cell could take down the whole thing tomorrow and rape them senseless for damages.

Cheek of it, not only are they ripping people off with 'their' lights, but also stealing peoples photos.

Case of fraud as well? because their beam shot is of one of youre Liberators and not a lumilite as suggested. Total diferent lights.

I'd be emailing/phoning them or trading standards??

Bet the picture of their unit isnt theirs either!

Smudge

I have mailed them and this is the reply

Dear Chris,

All the shots we have used on our site were from a huge selection sent into
us by our customers.

I don't know from what source these came but i will check and come back to
you.

Can you please tel me more about the shot just in case the source is adamant
it came from them?

Many thanks

Lumilite

I wonder how many people could find my beamshot location from the pictures

huge collection? theres only 2 beamshots on the site ?!

Did you send them youre original?

I sent a link to the original Liberator shot and also a link to the magicshine bastid beam shot

Are people (not trout, obviously) really getting their knickers in a twist that files on a photo [b]sharing[/b] site on the [b]internet[/b] become public domain??
Well, duh!

Them Lumilite fellas are cheeky buggers though eh.

What really [s]boils my piss[/s] mildly irritates me isn't the use of a photo which may or may not be in the public domain. It's that they're claiming it's from their own light when it's obviously from a higher output lamp.

Just a thought.
On their site, the two pictures which you've posted up, one of which is a very poor quality, are listed under a drop down header of "Night shots".
No where does it say it's their light (that I can ascertain) nor even which one.
Simply that they are night shots.

Furthermore, with a tripod and a long exposure, you can make most any light seem powerful and akin to having a small portable sun on your handlebars; so as standalone shots, they're of precious little true value tbh.

[i]What really [s]boils my piss[/s] mildly irritates me isn't the use of a photo which may or may not be in the public domain. It's that they're claiming it's from their own light when it's obviously from a higher output lamp[/i]

That is quite obviously the issue.

BezB.
They're not actually claiming anything.

ps - apologies for the poor English!