HEADS UP - Leisure Pro illegally using copyrighted images

[siikik]

The image used had a watermark on it that appears in the photo.

I used the mouse disable with popup notifying reproduction of website material is not authorized.

I could care less about credit - been doing this too long to keep doing it for free. I have no problems sharing images for personal or non-profit use. But not for commercial use. It has taken considerable time, money, and effort to get these images. If they want to use them for commercial purposes, pay me for them. They are in business to make money. So am I when it comes to articles and images I take time and energy to produce. I get lots of inquiries from magazines and advertisers wanting to use my images -- in return for credit only. I respond asking them if they produce their magazine or other material for credit only? Yeah, didn't think so.

I am sending them an invoice for use of the image, since they clearly used it, and its clearly my image (as seen in articles in US, Russian, Dutch, and German magazines). If I don['t get a response, it goes to small claims court for failure to pay. Copyright infringement via federal court is not really a viable option.

Then there are other avenues I can pursue, like notifying their ISP, disuading potential customers due to their less-than-ethical business practices, etc. Hopefully, they will do the right thing and all of this will be unecessary.

Mike

So, you don't need credit... that's great. And maybe I should have been more clear on the watermark... Emblazon one on your pictures. It doesn't have to be offensive, but it should be very very obvious. And not against a border either... too easy to crop out. Speaking of which, you should also crop out a portion of your picture... it makes it irrefutable who owns the original.

As far as protecting a picture with javascript... that's a joke. The only true way to protect something is to not publish it in the first place. The next best thing (on the Internet) is to secure it with SSL or some other mechanism requiring a login to access the page... and even with this, you can only limit access, not prevent theft.

Just be careful you're not sending out the wrong message. It's very feasible they acquired publishing permissions from one of the sources you listed.



Ken

 

[mike_s]

Mike,

You'd figure if they were going to use your image, they would at least Edit/cropped out the AUE like CDNN did when they used your image.


Did you know about this one yet?


from CDNN :: USS Oriskany - Scuba Diving on the 'Great Carrier Reef'

http://www.cdnn.info/news/oriskany_250182.jpg

 

[RJP]

Mike,

You'd figure if they were going to use your image, they would at least Edit/cropped out the AUE like CDNN did when they used your image.


Did you know about this one yet?


from CDNN :: USS Oriskany - Scuba Diving on the 'Great Carrier Reef'

http://www.cdnn.info/news/oriskany_250182.jpg

Their website is a commercial endeavor, sponsored by advertisers. Another shot at collecting royalty fees plus damages for commercial use of your images! Plus the fact that they cropped the copyright info means they KNOW they are stealing the image!

You might be able to pick up some nice change on this!

Mike might want to do a screen grabs of the LeisurePro and CDNN pages showing the images "in situ" before they swap them out.

 

[aue-mike]

Small claims court? BS!

Do you have any idea what the cost is to license an original photograph for commercial use? Their magazine is NOT a journalistic endeavor, it is promotional material. They are therefore using your image for commercial purposes.


Licensing fees for commercial use of original artwork can easily run into the tens of thousands of dollars. Beyond that, you cannot now sell or license this image to anyone else who might want "full buyout" of the image. Accordingly, your real damages well exceed the limits of NY small claims court. Not to mention potential for punitive damages. You don't need to go down the copyright infringement path in federal court. This is a civil matter.

Don't send them an invoice. Talk to a lawyer.

Sorry, but I think I have a clue (and all the other photographers that have to deal with this issue constantly).

Federal court (copyright infringement) or civil court is not realistic, as legal fees will be extremely cost prohibitive. This is one of the problems with swiping images off the internet as there is no good remedy. Most just send a cease-desist letter via DMCA and that's it.

With your response, I am guessing you are a lawyer

Cheers,
Mike

 

[deco_martini]

If you want to protect your images, you can pretty much you either make it viewable (and downloadable ) to those on a website, or you don't.

Pretty much what mike_s and others have said. Content protection is easily defeated with something called a "screenshot". Hit prt-screen and then crop the photo out.

 

[mike_s]

upon close review, it doesn't appear to be the same exact picture now if you put them both in the same frame and compare them.

but it's still possible that they are both Mike's and he took one right after the other because they are very close in perspective, lighting, angle, etc.

definately looks like CDNN cropped this out of a pic that might have been Mikes.

 

[aue-mike]

Mike,

You'd figure if they were going to use your image, they would at least Edit/cropped out the AUE like CDNN did when they used your image.


Did you know about this one yet?


from CDNN :: USS Oriskany - Scuba Diving on the 'Great Carrier Reef'

http://www.cdnn.info/news/oriskany_250182.jpg

No, did not know about that one, but not surprised its CDNN. They have a long track record of this, and several of my friends have been battling with them. Basically, CDNN are a bunch of cowards. Check this out:
CDNN Spammers cyber divers news network EXPOSED
I guess I need to add my name to that list....

 

[aue-mike]

upon close review, it doesn't appear to be the same exact picture now if you put them both in the same frame and compare them.

but it's still possible that they are both Mike's and he took one right after the other because they are very close in perspective, lighting, angle, etc.

definately looks like CDNN cropped this out of a pic that might have been Mikes.

Not sure its mine or not at this point, as I will have to go through my images to check. But I am fairly confident they didn't get permission to use whatever image appears on their website.

 

[RJP]

Uh oh...

Didn't realize that Mike posted the image on flckr.com, which is owned by Yahoo.

LeisurePro simply linked the image

Wonder if Mike ever read the terms of use for flickr? In particular Section 9, paragraph 2...

9.) CONTENT SUBMITTED OR MADE AVAILABLE FOR INCLUSION ON THE YAHOO! SERVICES

Yahoo! does not claim ownership of Content you submit or make available for inclusion on the Yahoo! Services. However, with respect to Content you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Yahoo! Services, you grant Yahoo! the following worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive license(s), as applicable:

2. With respect to photos, graphics, audio or video you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Yahoo! Services other than Yahoo! Groups, the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Yahoo! Services solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made available. This license exists only for as long as you elect to continue to include such Content on the Yahoo! Services and will terminate at the time you remove or Yahoo! removes such Content from the Yahoo! Services.

 

[scottfiji]

Personally, if they gave you credit for the picture, I'd take the publicity over royalties. Maybe you don't need to add "published author" to your portfolio, but that's what they did for you, like it or not. I'd consider choosing my battles on this one.
Ken

Ken, the photographer should get paid for their work, plain and simple. The value of "publicity" is usually something a business is trying to sell you on to get something from you for free

I know a lady that had a website and when folks stole her map images in which she designed herself, she would send a Cease and Desist letter and a bill for damages. She won nearly every time.

Maybe you should consider the same.

Gary

Excellent advice.

Who cares? Photo credits don't pay bills, and these companies have money they could spend for your hard work.
If you take your work seriously, make them take it seriously.

Just my 2 cents...

Well said

I am sending them an invoice for use of the image, since they clearly used it, and its clearly my image (as seen in articles in US, Russian, Dutch, and German magazines). If I don['t get a response, it goes to small claims court for failure to pay. Copyright infringement via federal court is not really a viable option.


Mike

Exactly, this is the right thing to do.

upon close review, it doesn't appear to be the same exact picture now if you put them both in the same frame and compare them.

definately looks like CDNN cropped this out of a pic that might have been Mikes.

These images aren't even close.

9.) CONTENT SUBMITTED OR MADE AVAILABLE FOR INCLUSION ON THE YAHOO! SERVICES

Yahoo! does not claim ownership of Content you submit or make available for inclusion on the Yahoo! Services. However, with respect to Content you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Yahoo! Services, you grant Yahoo! the following worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive license(s), as applicable:

2. With respect to photos, graphics, audio or video you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Yahoo! Services other than Yahoo! Groups, the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Yahoo! Services solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made available. This license exists only for as long as you elect to continue to include such Content on the Yahoo! Services and will terminate at the time you remove or Yahoo! removes such Content from the Yahoo! Services.

I highly doubt this would hold up in court, the court's realize people don't read the fine print on all of these terms of use, and that professional's photos can't be stolen just because they are uploaded onto a photo sharing site.