I have just had this pointed out to me one of my beam shot photos
on their website and it is not even the DX bastid light shot
cos this is
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
do they owe me some dosh now
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 - MemberIf 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 - MemberTrout, 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!
"They're not actually claiming anything."
A resonable person might infer that they would include shots of their own product in use on their site rather than a competitors.
This is therefore misrepresentation and, as such, is misleading and therefore, in all likliehood illegal.
We are not privy to the email from Trout identifying and linking to these shots, so it might be a little presumptuous at this juncture to pre-suppose anything.
I'm not saying it's correct, but looking at the web site, at no point are they specifying that their lights are featured in the "night shots" drop down menu, moreover, their retort might well tell us that these are rider's pictures kindly donated and sent into them, illustrating what they to believe to be their lights in action and that they are, to the best of their knowledge, not attempting to misrepresent their products in the slightest.
This is what I would like to believe to be the case, there are, after all, going to be two sides of this coin, and I'd give them the benefit of the doubt, all things considered.
It does suck picture nicking. A light maker nicking another light makers image...tut.
I had one of mine nicked by rail news.
http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/general/2008/11/04-network-rail-bridging.html
[img] 
[/img]
Bristol Evening Post owes me £100 and still aint got it.
Any suggestions of a good letter proforma and invoice to send them... Grrr. Also, what would be a reasonable sum ?
their retort might well tell us that these are rider's pictures kindly donated and sent into them, illustrating what they to believe to be their lights in action and that they are, to the best of their knowledge, not attempting to misrepresent their products in the slightest.
It might.
[img] 
[/img]
Red:
What makes you think the light manufacturer stole the image?
The information in this post tells us quite the opposite.
Your post is a little confusing. Have or have you not you invoiced the paper for £100? You seem to then to want an invoice form, which is not necessary as you can make out an invoice on pretty much anything, then you ask how much the invoice should be for.
Make your mind up! Why do they owe you £100? Where did they get the image? What size did they use it? Are you the author? You'll need to provide a concise history of the image for anyone to make an informed judgment.
Thread title: "Lumilite have nicked my photo"
The Evening Post used two images and never paid me. The rate for BEP if they use a submitted image is £50.
The bridge picture was taken by me and I can prove it if I wish, sadly Railnews just ignore me :-(.
I was just looking for some more formal words to send them. But conversely I'm not losing any sleep over it.
Them Lumilite fellas are cheeky buggers though eh.
Lumilite have also been called out for spamming on Bikeradar, starting threads along the lines of "hey guys, check out this interesting light company". Which kind of backfired after people pointed out that their product is available much cheaper direct from the manufacturer. 🙂
As a company that's apparently too cheap to pay for proper advertising, too stupid to ask for permission before ripping off someone's photos, and too dishonest to give an accurate representation of their product, I wouldn't buy from them.
[url= http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12668892&highlight=bike+lights ]Evidence of said twonkery[/url]
All you need to do is submit the invoice.
This should state the terms of payment, typically within 28 days.
It needs your name and address and a contact email / telephone number and an invoice number, say 1572 for argument sake. If you add your bank details they may well settle it that way.
If you are VAT registered you will need to add some extra details, but I'll assume you're not for the moment.
A short covering letter telling them what the images were and what pages they were used on and on what date the paper ran them.
Then you follow this up with a call to their accounts department after a month.
You don't mention how they got hold of the images.
Thanks
Ti29er and Mr Agreeable
I'll dig out the original images again.
Lumilite have also been called out for spamming on Bikeradar, starting threads along the lines of "hey guys, check out this interesting light company".
Are Lumilite EU based? if so, then AFAIK, they're probably breaking EU/UK trading laws. They can advertise, but they can't pretend to be a satisfied customer recommending a product on a forum. I'd shop them to trading standards for that as well as misleading claims.
As for photo theft... any photo sharing site can say what they like, but if you took the photo, you retain copyright, even if it it is in the public domain. Most of my photos that have been used have been hotlinked directly to commercial travel agencies. So I just swapped the JPGs out for those of scantily clad ladies that I found somewhere.
"I just swapped the JPGs out"
that's cruel 🙂
Can I suggest you add text to all meta data attached to each and every image you take?
This can be done in camera and if not, then even more accurately in post production software.
This would then tell anyone who might consider using an image of yours that they [i]must at all times [/i]defer back to you, the originator before using the image in any commercial ventures. Word it how you will, giving some indication of its possible useage, with and / or without likely fees.
Update .
I pointed out to Lumilite that the pic was one of mine and in no way looked like a P7 beam as it was a 2200 lumen Liberator beam shot .
I also offered them useage of the correct beam shot from a magicshine as long as I got credit for the picture .
They have replied to say they apologise and will remove the offending pic asap within 24 hours
No mention if they want to use the excelent beam shot I supplied them .
My Update:
I'll be sending this crowd an invoice.
Nicked Pic:
[img] [/img]
My Pic:
[url= http://static.zooomr.com/images/8895289_60eec64262_o.jp g" target="_blank">
red,
ygm
redthunder
While it does look like the pictures were taken from about the same place at about the same time, I can't help noticing the one you claim to be stolen is a lot smaller.
You didn't happen to notice if there was a chap next to you with a much smaller camera, did you?
Higgo - Memberredthunder
While it does look like the pictures were taken from about the same place at about the same time, I can't help noticing the one you claim to be stolen is a lot smaller.
You didn't happen to notice if there was a chap next to you with a much smaller camera, did you?
MAS*
*Midly Amused Smirk, wasn;t quite enough to actually make me laugh
They have replied to say they apologise and will remove the offending pic asap within 24 hours
And remove it they did.
completely unrelated to trout BUT based on the comments of 3 folk ive ridden with this week AND the last post on that bikeradar thread it seems that people are confused between lumilite and lumicycle....
which may not be entirely unintentional on the 'upstarts' part?
oh dont get me wrongi understand that . i just think its rather underhand on there part - ok its business and all that i just think they are selling a product thats nothing remotely like lumicycles ie lumicycles do good lights and these are shit (based on my sample group of 4 mates having them an all have failed - with different modes of failure too and varying between first ride and 2 weeks old) but cashing in on lumicycles reputation through the confusion !
when i look at there website im drawn to the word "lumi" and lights is nice and small - would be easy to miss- and given people refer to lumicycles as "lumis" its easy to see where the confusion comes.
frankly my take on it is they are a shower of unscrupulous con men and id rather deal direct with DX than give them my dosh ! (cumulativly not just based on my point above - stealing trouts photo , portraying it as their light , poor customer service and aftercare and commuication breakdown ! )