Stolen image used on TV..

[Burnouts]

Hi all,

I'm not sure if this is the right forum but here goes.

If you take notice of this YouTube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=RSDUcKw-GOk#t=138s) from about 2:10 onwards you will see the person using a photo of a Holden LX Torana doing a wheelstand that looks very similar to an image I took (http://www.dragpix.net.au/content/wallpapers/south-coast-raceway-2009-2010/1280/holden-torana-lx-ss-dragpix-net.jpg) :)

I'm not sure where I stand on this but shortly after the video was uploaded I filed a copyright complaint to YouTube and it was declined (no reasoning), it only had probably 2-3k views at the time but it now has 5 million (not including the other people who have re-uploaded the video).

The terms of use are very clear on my website (http://www.dragpix.net.au/tc), but even still I hold copyright of all images on the website regardless..

Pissed that my photos was used for commercial use without permission, but to have YT reject my complaint and I'm sure the person who uploaded the video has made some $$ out of ads.

What do I do now?

[I @ M]

Establish positively that the image is actually yours and if that is the case, send everyone concerned with the publication of that image a huge invoice. :D

[Burnouts]

It is my image, they provide a close up of the image during the video.. my website and name is clearly visible..

Seriously, what are my options.. apart from hiring a lawyer and coming out in the red due to costs.

[I @ M]

Seriously, what are my options.. apart from hiring a lawyer and coming out in the red due to costs.

Seriously!!!

Start sending invoices for the use of the image. Follow up unpaid amounts due with a debt collector. They just add their bill to the invoice, there is no way you should be out of pocket at all.

[ameerat42]

I hope you get something out of it. BTW, the image you said was the one just looks like a coloured spiral shape.
Am.

[sufran]

Have you contacted the TV station that used the image? You note that the image in question was "stolen" and used on TV (presumably on the program that you linked to in the YouTube segment). So you may get a better response from the source i.e. the program's producers or the station's management.

Also, when I clicked on the link to the website image, it was just a link to a logo, not to the image in question.

Good luck.

[Burnouts]

I have contacted the following.. Seven Network, FremantleMedia Australia and SYCOtv (shows producers) and none have bothered to even reply. I got an automatic email as a confirmation they received my email from FremantleMedia. Apart from that I've heard nothing..

Here's a close up of the image in the video..
http://iforce.co.nz/i/p0ouzueu.con.jpg

Another view
http://iforce.co.nz/i/yazhmipn.a0j.jpg

Original file of mine.
http://www.dragpix.net.au/content/wallpapers/south-coast-raceway-2009-2010/1280/holden-torana-lx-ss-dragpix-net.jpg

[ameerat42]

Here's a thought: contact their very own "Today Tonight" - NOW, even!!!

Also tell them you are going to contact MediaWatch if they don't come to the party.
Am.

[Burnouts]

I found another email for them, I'll give it a shot.

http://iforce.co.nz/i/whiwtgcd.vkj.jpg

Heres the uncropped version in my lightroom lol!

[ricktas]

As per responses above, you want our advice. My thoughts are youtube refused to act on your copyright claim, but you are not happy with that, you really have 3 choices:

1. Contact youtube again and clearly state your case and see what happens
2. Contact a legal person and persue it that way
3. Do nothing.

It really is up to you, which you decide, but you need to be prepared to follow each one through.

[Burnouts]

Thanks for the advice people, I will sit down and go through it all again and see what I want to do. I don't exactly want to try and sue (along those lines) a big company as they have more money than I do but they have no right to do it in the first place.

[Granville]

Seems to me it was the contestant on the show who violated the copyright. Not Australia's got talent or the TV station. I'm not sure what obligation they have to ensure the contestants don't violate copyright, although surely there must be some, but maybe only in the area of the songs the contestants sing.

Time for advice from a copyright lawyer.

[ktoopi]

There's a lot to be said for having a LARGE copyright symbol that covers most of the image!!

[ricktas]

Just as an aside. Any photos placed on Ausphotography in the critique forums are only visible to active site members. The mods and I also have access to a section on each thread that shows us every single member who has viewed the thread. So if an issue arises whereby someone feels their photo was taken from AP, we are in a position to look at a lot of information regarding who possibly took the photo.

Take this thread, the list below shows us who has looked at it:

Members who have read this thread: 65
I @ M, ricktas, jim, Darey, Burnouts, Speedway, nwhc, harper, leanneqld, Tikira, Chromo, jollie, mikew09, rookie,
ameerat42, sufran, Wayne, Mary Anne, Boo53, Ionica, nasa62, FallingHorse, Boofhead, danny, ScottM, brownie, rnicetin, trublubiker, mpb, Rattus79, Warus, ice, agb, Tommo1965, hakka, Cattleprod, Wandapics, Mark L, MattNQ, Birdman, Cobalt Blue, Keith Young, ktoopi, Allie, 71Bogan, Lplates, SirLozalot, salty, blkmcs, nardes, MJay, davsv1,
fenderstrat1963, Gonk0, Fran, Granville, robbosaxon, Dittography, CherylK, Sifor, Film Street, Warbler, Iscariot,
Bevlea, alsocass

It doesn't matter if you comment on the thread or not, we see a list of who has viewed the thread

[Burnouts]

There's a lot to be said for having a LARGE copyright symbol that covers most of the image!!

All my other images do have watermarks on them, the above image is a wallpaper for personal use only.

[neil70]

I agree with Andrew, send them a VERY large bill for allowing the use of the photo on their show with out checking for copyright clearance (as they would with a song). Also include payment for royalties lost with them using the segment in their advertising. the TV show are the ones who have not shown due diligence in regard to the use of the image prior to it being aired.

[Mark L]

I tend to think there's something close to the truth in this;

Seems to me it was the contestant on the show who violated the copyright. Not Australia's got talent or the TV station. I'm not sure what obligation they have to ensure the contestants don't violate copyright, although surely there must be some, but maybe only in the area of the songs the contestants sing.

Time for advice from a copyright lawyer.

[alsocass]

Is there any case for letting a 19yo meat packer getting his 15minutes of fame off the hook? (pardon the pun).

Did it damage you in anyway and would it be reasonable to assume the young man would have found a different photo if he had been aware that he was infringing copyright?

[Burnouts]

well one step in the right direction

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSDUcKw-GOk

hehe

[Wayne]

well one step in the right direction

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSDUcKw-GOk

hehe

Now you just need to see if he uploads it again.

[milesy]

its still there

[Analog6]

Gone now.

[aussieray]

Great image. Is it really worth the hassel. Is it a $30, $100 or $1000 photograph to you?
Nothing will remove the fact this kid has done the wrong thing, but seriously, take it as free advertising! I'd be telling everyone I know that was my photo the kid used, and I'd be proud as punch to see it on TV.
you sue him, he declares he is bankrupt and you're out of pocket as well as time. Time that could have been spent taking more photographs.

[milesy]

its still there

here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhR6dWk1-S8

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdcpLP_eYMo

[Wayne]

Great image. Is it really worth the hassel. Is it a $30, $100 or $1000 photograph to you?
Nothing will remove the fact this kid has done the wrong thing, but seriously, take it as free advertising! I'd be telling everyone I know that was my photo the kid used, and I'd be proud as punch to see it on TV.
you sue him, he declares he is bankrupt and you're out of pocket as well as time. Time that could have been spent taking more photographs.

I don't think it's about the actual monetary value. It is a matter of principle. If creators remain silent on this blatant rip off of their works, what you are then doing is condoning such act, saying it's ok. Exposure such as in this case being seen on TV by perhaps millions, I would guess has resulted in the usual benefits exposure brings, and that is absolutely nothing! I ask the OP if this exposure has brought him any work? I would be surprised, very surprised if it had.

[aussieray]

I don't think it's about the actual monetary value. It is a matter of principle. If creators remain silent on this blatant rip off of their works, what you are then doing is condoning such act, saying it's ok. Exposure such as in this case being seen on TV by perhaps millions, I would guess has resulted in the usual benefits exposure brings, and that is absolutely nothing! I ask the OP if this exposure has brought him any work? I would be surprised, very surprised if it had.

If you can afford it fight it. Like I said, the kid gets sued for more money than he has and declares himself bankrupt.
I am not sure if the TOG (Burnouts) is an official photographer for the vehicle owner or event organiser. If not, he/she would have obtained a signed release right, because it appears it was taken at an official track and not public property. Sure there are assumptions here, but maybe the TOG has breached as much as they were breached!


edit
I just clicked the website link and it would appear they may be an official photographer.
Is there any chance the kid could have purchased the image, if so is it still a blatant ripoff?

[Wayne]

Unless the kid purchased the image and holds it's copyright, or holds a license to use the image in that way then it is a blatant rip off. I am guessing the OP still retains copyright and wouldn't object if he didn't. I already said it's not about suing anyone, it is about having the infringing videos removed, and therefore the unlawful use of the copyrighted works cease.

Given the photographer shot the image, he wouldn't need a release to use it as that makes him the copyright holder, even if it was taken on private land, copyright does not pass to anyone else except where an image was taken for private and domestic purposes, ie- a wedding shoot - Yes, that's right, by default the client owns copyright not the photographer although photographers almost always deprive clients of that right by having the client sign away their rights in the wedding photography contract, the other is where the photographer assigns the rights to a 3rd party in a contract for the shoot.

[Glenda]

Might be worth watching
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQR-CAr0-s8

[Burnouts]

Great image. Is it really worth the hassel. Is it a $30, $100 or $1000 photograph to you?
Nothing will remove the fact this kid has done the wrong thing, but seriously, take it as free advertising! I'd be telling everyone I know that was my photo the kid used, and I'd be proud as punch to see it on TV.
you sue him, he declares he is bankrupt and you're out of pocket as well as time. Time that could have been spent taking more photographs.
You don't seem to understand, I did not go through the efforts covering these events to only have some idiot stealing my work.

Nobody has ever bought a copy of this image for private or commercial use, at the time I was the only official tog at this track/event.

I have reported those other videos and should see them taken down or similar, I have been attempting to get in contact with Daniel but he is not replying (emails and calls are going through).