Photo stealing scum

[caribbeansun]

Hmmm - I enjoy cruising and happened across a thread on Cruise Critic where an Ottawa photographer had their images stolen from Smugmug and the scum actually removed their watermark, put their own name and copyright on the images BUT left the EXIF intact and even left the file names intact.

Originals = http://globaltraveller.smugmug.com/Ship ... 1660_Eg7SV

Scumbag = http://www.flickr.com/photos/iombie/set ... 358849519/

This stuff REALLY makes my blood boil

 

[klpca]

Like no one would notice? The original photos are quite distinctive. What an idiot.

 

[JudyH]

Carribbean Sun

Are you by any chance doing the Baltic cruise in August?

 

[caribbeansun]

Yes, and are you by chance on a SPB excursion with me? :hysterical:

 

[persia]

Of course it's in Flickr so we don't know what they intend to do with them, may he's just passing them off as holiday snaps to the relatives...

Hmmm - I enjoy cruising and happened across a thread on Cruise Critic where an Ottawa photographer had their images stolen from Smugmug and the scum actually removed their watermark, put their own name and copyright on the images BUT left the EXIF intact and even left the file names intact.

Originals = http://globaltraveller.smugmug.com/Ship ... 1660_Eg7SV

Scumbag = http://www.flickr.com/photos/iombie/set ... 358849519/

This stuff REALLY makes my blood boil

 

[caribbeansun]

Sorry but does it really matter?

Stealing is stealing no matter what the intended end use is.

Of course it's in Flickr so we don't know what they intend to do with them, may he's just passing them off as holiday snaps to the relatives...

 

[persia]

I doubt personal use of images is steeling, I personally don't care if someone uses my images to impress Aunt Sally. I DO care if they are trying to make a buck off of them though. And that's where copyright would come in. Of course leaving them on an open flickr gets them into search engines and the like and other collectors might collect the modified images. Ah, the digital world is so complex.

The bothersome bit here is the new copyright tag, why would someone do that to impress Aunt Sally?

Sorry but does it really matter?

Stealing is stealing no matter what the intended end use is.

 

[Makai Guy]

I had somebody swipe this picture from my Kauai site one time ..

.. and put it on his own website as his own picture. He even had edited the sailboat out.

 

[RX8]

Of course it's in Flickr so we don't know what they intend to do with them, may he's just passing them off as holiday snaps to the relatives...

I think this guy took it further than that. He used editing software to remove the original photographer's watermark and replaced it with his own, even having the nerve to add the copyright symbol next to his name.

 

[deemarket]

What a great shot!

I had somebody swipe this picture from my Kauai site one time ..

.. and put it on his own website as his own picture. He even had edited the sailboat out.

Very, very nice photo! What I wouldn't give to be there right now enjoying the sand and surf, etc.

 

[RX8]

I had somebody swipe this picture from my Kauai site one time ..

.. and put it on his own website as his own picture. He even had edited the sailboat out.

Nice photo. If I stole it, I would have photoshopped me sitting in the boat.....

 

[ampaholic]

Nice photo. If I stole it, I would have photoshopped me sitting in the boat.....

Careful - I think that's how the Matrix starts ... all of us electronically crowding into that boat.

 

[Timeshare Von]

It Happens

I had this photo "taken" and used by the musher's PR staff on a media release to YahooSports.com:

While I didn't mind their using my photo, I was offended that attribution wasn't given to me. When I advised YahooSports, they confirmed the source of the photo and changed it immediately.

 

[Timeshare Von]

I doubt personal use of images is steeling, I personally don't care if someone uses my images to impress Aunt Sally. I DO care if they are trying to make a buck off of them though. And that's where copyright would come in. Of course leaving them on an open flickr gets them into search engines and the like and other collectors might collect the modified images. Ah, the digital world is so complex.

The bothersome bit here is the new copyright tag, why would someone do that to impress Aunt Sally?

Any use and such misrepresentation is stealing, regardless of whether or not money is involved.

 

[IngridN]

I had somebody swipe this picture from my Kauai site one time ..

.. and put it on his own website as his own picture. He even had edited the sailboat out.

Love the photo. Makes me want to log into II and book a timeshare. We've been to Kauai only once, but it's on the short list of my favorite Hawaiian islands.

Ingrid

 

[Mel]

I doubt personal use of images is steeling, I personally don't care if someone uses my images to impress Aunt Sally. I DO care if they are trying to make a buck off of them though. And that's where copyright would come in. Of course leaving them on an open flickr gets them into search engines and the like and other collectors might collect the modified images. Ah, the digital world is so complex.

The bothersome bit here is the new copyright tag, why would someone do that to impress Aunt Sally?

Yes, personal use is still stealing. A copyright means the person who took the photo has all rights to that photo, and you don't have the right to post it on your public website without permission. If the photo is in the public domain, that would be a different story - but putting your own copyright mark on the pictures is plagiarism.

 

[JudyH]

Small world, CarribbeanSun, we are indeed on the SPB tour with you.

 

[Mel]

I had this photo "taken" and used by the musher's PR staff on a media release to YahooSports.com

While I didn't mind their using my photo, I was offended that attribution wasn't given to me. When I advised YahooSports, they confirmed the source of the photo and changed it immediately.

But that begs the question on the other side of the coin. Where did they take your picture from? If it was posted on a public site, did you have a release from the musher to post her picture? While the picture was taken in public, one could argue that the subject has as much right to the picture as the photographer, unless they have come to some sort of agreement (though the photo should have been attributed properly).

 

[dougp26364]

But that begs the question on the other side of the coin. Where did they take your picture from? If it was posted on a public site, did you have a release from the musher to post her picture? While the picture was taken in public, one could argue that the subject has as much right to the picture as the photographer, unless they have come to some sort of agreement (though the photo should have been attributed properly).

In a public setting, you don't need a release to use the photo of someone else. How do you think tabloids operate? Do you really believe they get a release to use the photo's in their papers? Some of those photo's are taken when the celebrity is on private property but the photographer is not. Yet, they post those photo's in tabloids and, they derive their income from them, all without a written release.

 

[Timeshare Von]

In a public setting, you don't need a release to use the photo of someone else. How do you think tabloids operate? Do you really believe they get a release to use the photo's in their papers? Some of those photo's are taken when the celebrity is on private property but the photographer is not. Yet, they post those photo's in tabloids and, they derive their income from them, all without a written release.

Correct Doug. I took the photo while out on the trail in a public area. She got the photo from my FB album of photos I took during my weekend covering the race as a freelancer (on a media credential pass).

Also just because you post your photos in some social media area (like FB or here for that matter) does not give it up to public domain and use. The photographer retains and owns all rights, even if they do not bother to put the (c) bug on the image. The (c) bug provides the owner certain rights relative to damages, should they wish to pursue them.

 

[Timeshare Von]

But that begs the question on the other side of the coin. Where did they take your picture from? If it was posted on a public site, did you have a release from the musher to post her picture? While the picture was taken in public, one could argue that the subject has as much right to the picture as the photographer, unless they have come to some sort of agreement (though the photo should have been attributed properly).

The copyright laws are pretty clear in this regard as to who owns the rights, to include photos taken during the course of employment. (Some times the rights are owned by the employer, while under other circumstances, they are owned by the individual photographer.)