HUGE copyright infringement / image stolen

[danny]

Seems like every other week there is a case of this either being described on AP by members or reported in the media somewhere. Here is a case I found today in the SMH.

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/photographer-sues-over-stolen-photo-20130115-2cqh1.html

Thought some maybe interested.

Cheers
Danny

[Duane Pipe]

It go's to show that we as togs should be mindful of where we place our images online. I know I would not upload to a site that had control of "copy right", not that mine are worth anything:2biggn:

[geoffsta]

Wouldn't have expected that from Flickr?

[FallingHorse]

I recently complained to FB that another person was using one of my image as their cover photo. To their credit the item was removed in less than 24 hrs

[Wayne]

A good example of the reason why I don't use Flickr...

[Xenedis]

People, Flickr is not the problem.

On Flickr you have the choice of setting an 'All Rights Reserved' licence, or one of the Creative Commons licences.

The problem is people helping themselves to other people's images in an unauthorised manner.

It doesn't matter whether your image is hosted on Flickr or anywhere else; people who have no regard for photographers' rights will help themselves to images they want.

I hope Naomi wins her case. I've seen her around (online) over the years.

[danny]

totally agree Xenedis. Either it was a blatant stealing of an image or it was a naive mistake. You would have to think though that someone somewhere along the line should have double checked that there was no copyright issue. It simple defies belief.

Danny

[geoffsta]

What makes the whole thing worse, is the fact that these morons should know better. I could understand if like me a couple of years ago found an image that I liked, and passed it on to friends and family. Although I would have said it wasn't one that I had took, I found it on the internet. But these people are professional type people, and should know the laws in regards to this type of behavior. :scrtch:

[ricktas]

Wouldn't have expected that from Flickr?

I doubt it was Flickr, but rather someone else on Flickr who saw the photo and 'appropriated a copy'

[Doktaduck]

I'm sure things will work out for the Photographer, really I can't see how they couldn't, and I can't believe that Lowes just didn't turn around and admit the 'error' and pay the lady when it was brought to their attention.

[Warbler]

I'm sure things will work out for the Photographer, really I can't see how they couldn't, and I can't believe that Lowes just didn't turn around and admit the 'error' and pay the lady when it was brought to their attention.

Maybe the problem for Lowes was that they already paid someone else for the photo. Eventually some government is going to decide that this is all too hard and amend the Copyright Act, and we'll all loose control over anything we put on-line. There are still many organisations and corporations around that don't understand copyright. I had a corporate client pass images I took for them to another organisation who then displayed them on-line with no attribution. This was a large corporation. The fact that more and more images for newspapers are being sourced from Flickr doesn't help either. Everyone thinks they're free.

The only reason I didn't burr-up was that both organisations had hired me to do work for them and were clients.

[Doktaduck]

Yes, as bad as it sounds.. a lot of people do not even think about the copyright/photographer when accessing images from the web.

It might be inconceivable for people that have been involved with photography for a long time, but as someone that is very new to it, I can attest that before reading these (and other) photography forums, and then getting my camera, it certainly is not something that I ever thought about.

My thinking was (and I know this is wrong but I think it highlights the laymen's POV) that if it was on the internet, and did not have a big "copyright" symbol across it, then I was free to use it. Not sell it as my photo, but definitely use the image in presentations or what ever.. and the most I attributed, was where it was sourced...

I know ignorance is not a legal defense, but I just wanted to put it out there that not all the incidents are done out of greed or malice.

[Warus]

Do Lowes make the shirts they sell or do they purchase from a manufacturer that supplies them with the prints already in place? Could be the manufacturer rather than the seller at fault.

[danny]

My thinking is... Lowes buys cheap (very cheap i would imagine) therefore there are going to be people who are being paid very little to "design" clothing. I can almost see the inexperienced "designer" trolling the web for ideas/inspiration and suddenly stumbling onto the image and not knowing any better jus simple put it straight onto the shirt.

My opinion is that this has all been the result of trying to do things as cheap as possible. Ironically it will now undoubtably cost a lot more.

I am sure someone will learn a lesson from all of this, less of which will be the "designer", supplier and retailer.

Cheers
Danny

[William]

Yes, as bad as it sounds.. a lot of people do not even think about the copyright/photographer when accessing images from the web.

It might be inconceivable for people that have been involved with photography for a long time, but as someone that is very new to it, I can attest that before reading these (and other) photography forums, and then getting my camera, it certainly is not something that I ever thought about.

My thinking was (and I know this is wrong but I think it highlights the laymen's POV) that if it was on the internet, and did not have a big "copyright" symbol across it, then I was free to use it. Not sell it as my photo, but definitely use the image in presentations or what ever.. and the most I attributed, was where it was sourced...

I know ignorance is not a legal defense, but I just wanted to put it out there that not all the incidents are done out of greed or malice.





I think your very right Dok, I took this shot yesterday morning , By 12.00 pm it was being used by a company to advertise there business (There watermark and all) :2enew: My son Joel posted it on that "Instagram" site which I know nothing about , But they were quick off the mark, It was water marked with our Logo but because of the square format the site uses it got chopped off , You can read there advertising and Joels comment back to them , It has now been pulled down after a lot of our friends made some , Not so nice comments to them :2biggn: