View Full Version : stolen/borrowed pics ?
ricstew
17-01-2011, 3:38pm
I am struggling with a conscience decision.......If you knew a photographer was claiming someone else's pictures what would you do?
cheers
Jan
Jan, if it involves AP in any way send a pm to Rick first up.
If it doesn't involve AP then the answer is perfectly clear to me, tell the "photographer" that you know exactly what they are doing either face to face or via the ether.
If you know the person/s that the "photographer" is stealing the photos from, tell them as well.
If it is a "friend" that is stealing the photos, do you really want them as a friend.
Scotty72
17-01-2011, 3:45pm
Depending on circumstances, you, legally, may have no choice - accessory after the fact.
But, that is probably a little extreme :P
But, I suppose if you knew someone who was robbing banks, would you report the person? Just because the crime is of less monetary value, doesn't mean it is less bad.
Art Vandelay
17-01-2011, 3:48pm
That's about as low as it gets in the photography/arts world. hmm, do you know either of them ?
Mr Lensbaby
17-01-2011, 3:51pm
I am struggling with a conscience decision.......If you knew a photographer was claiming someone else's pictures what would you do?
cheers
Jan
I take it you know some one is taking credit for photos that weren't taken by him ? Is this on a forum? commercially been used ? Used on a home page? probably we need more information as all would need a different approach.
ricstew
17-01-2011, 4:19pm
Phooey no its not on a forum.......I followed a link to a link on FB.....and there they were " my first wedding ".........but I was at that wedding......it was my niece......I helped mum design and sew that wedding dress :( The gentleman who photographed that wedding is no longer around here. I am 98.99999 % there was no second shooter. I have looked at the printed album! I have tried to find a website for who I think is the owner of the pics but no luck so far :( Craploa.... I know the person was mentored by him at one stage but I don't recall them attending this wedding at all.......however I will check with the brides mum. I know who videoed it and it wasn't this person either.
However the person has quite a following locally........do I be pi#$$ed of discretely? I can see that I would be the royal " bi#$$^" if I am not careful.......phooey phooey phooey
Mr Lensbaby
17-01-2011, 4:26pm
Honestly dose it relay matter life is too short;)
ricktas
17-01-2011, 4:46pm
My thoughts. Be 110% sure before you say anything to anyone, on the above information. If you are wrong, you could end up in court for defamation or more. Remember this is someone's business and livelihood. If you accuse them, you need to be VERY sure!
see if they are in the aipp too
ricstew
17-01-2011, 4:57pm
I wish I hadn't seen them ...:(
I know the pro guy is >> in the aipp
Duane Pipe
17-01-2011, 5:01pm
Sorry guys im sitting in the BG just reading.
What is aipp:beer_mug:
Aust int of pro photography. If you could prove it I'd take to them. They'd have a very dim view I'd expect. Maybe pm William longshots for some advice
I personally wouldnt let it go as it's deplorable if true
Duane Pipe
17-01-2011, 5:55pm
Thanks for the heads up Darren
Scotty72
17-01-2011, 6:02pm
I'm with Rick. Unless you can provide solid evidence, leave it.
On the other hand, if you can provide the evidence, I think you should inform the owner and the aipp. Then, it's outta your hands and you can clear you conscious.
Scotty
etherial
17-01-2011, 6:14pm
Sorry guys im sitting in the BG just reading.
What is aipp:beer_mug:
Australian Institute of Professional Photography
http://www.aipp.com.au (http://www.aipp.com.au/)
Duane Pipe
17-01-2011, 6:46pm
Thanks Mic
So if they are on face book only what has he/she to gain, a wow look at me or can something more come of it like marketing and ultimately sales if so I would consider letting the cat out,
I have so many times taken images off the net in the past without any respect to the photographer but now after joining AP I have learnt to respect other photogs images
It's not uncommon for pro photographers to even use stock photos to showcase their skills. I'm sure William if he pops in will attest to that
It's simply misleading and I would say darn close to breaching the fair practice act
ricstew
17-01-2011, 8:57pm
After much soul searching and discussions with hubby I am gonna leave it alone......unless I have positive proof and then I will send it to the owner. I found his website. Stuff like this really puts me off although I know it happens in other industries too. I dislike dishonesty :( Thanks for the advice guys.
cheers
Jan
mwphoto
26-01-2011, 5:20pm
I was contacted by another photographer about someone that had stolen one of my images and was using it in her portfolio (mine and alot of others). I am very appreciative to the photographer and was able to take appropriate action.
Personally,in this situation I would either a) contact the photographer and ask how they got the photo of your nieces wedding as you know they were not the pro photographer and/or b) have your niece contact the photographer to find out how that person has her wedding photo as they were not the hired tog - apart from copyright issues, I think their may be privacy issues for wedding photos (unless the photog has a signed agreement stating they own the copyright and can display the photo).
Either way, if this photographer has a legitimate claim to use the photo they will let you know without you having to outright call them a thief - which is important, they may have just been a guest at the wedding taking photos and now have gone into business (something your niece probably can confirm as she would know the names of her wedding guests).
dusty deb
15-02-2011, 10:20pm
Ooh I could not let this go. I think about how much time, effort planning etc that has gone into producing those photographs. Would it be any different to pinching someones, painting, picture or other artwork?
ricktas
16-02-2011, 5:25am
Ooh I could not let this go. I think about how much time, effort planning etc that has gone into producing those photographs. Would it be any different to pinching someones, painting, picture or other artwork?
The problem here Deb, is the proof. The thread started needs to be 110% sure they are right, before doing anything. If it turned out the other person did take the photos, the thread starter could be taken to court for slander etc. So yes, Deb, if the case is easy to prove, go for it, but tread warily, if you are not 110% sure of the facts surrounding the supposedly 'stolen' photos.
James T
16-02-2011, 8:26am
I may have mis-read something here, but can you not just contact the official photographer? Surely your niece has his details, or when you say "The gentleman who photographed that wedding is no longer around here" do you literally mean he's no longer around?
Tell them your suspicions and they can check it out. Obviously it would be very easy for the photographer to prove or disprove.
For the record, copyright infringement and theft are two very different issues, so certainly don't go accusing anyone of theft.
MarkChap
16-02-2011, 8:38am
Ok, have I got this straight
Person A appears to be using photos they didn't take
Person B was the official photographer that took the a fore mentioned images
Person A was mentored/trained/worked for Person B
To me the solution is easy,
contact Person B (the official photographer) and with out making any accusations ask them if they knew that Person A was using those images on their Facebook page. Or get your niece to do it, she was after all the Client
You are not making any allegations and if the official photographer says "oh yeah all cool" nothing to worry about. If it is not all above board it is then up to the official photographer to chase up.
Longshots
16-02-2011, 11:05am
for the record - copyright infringement is regarded as theft -:
"Website Copyright Infringement - Theft of Intellectual Property" case study from Australian Legal Firm
http://www.streeterlaw.com.au/fraud/copyright-infringement
Sadly this situation isnt rare - its oddly enough being even regarded as acceptable by many. Hence my constant reminders about applying Metadata and Watermarks in an effort to protect your work/images.
James T
16-02-2011, 11:25am
for the record - copyright infringement is regarded as theft -:
Hmm, seems it is, my apologies... maybe I'm thinking of UK law.
I've always understood theft to involve depriving someone of something. Which obviously isn't the case in most copyright disputes.
while on the topic i found this rather interesting read on this website: http://copyright.qantm.com.au/dig-copy-faq.htm#3
WHAT IF I MANIPULATE THE DIGITAL IMAGE SO THAT IT IS UNRECOGNISABLE? DOES THAT OVERCOME ANY PROBLEMS WITH COPYRIGHT LAW?
If you manipulate the digital image so that you create an entirely new one you will own copyright in the image which you have produced. The image will be protected by copyright as an artistic work and you will have all the usual rights that apply to that kind of work. Now, you can control your work by making others ask for your permission if they want to copy it or use it, eg. on their web site.
This is a good example of how to avoid problems with copyright. If you create your own original work you don't have to be concerned about having to get somebody else's permission or clearance. In fact, this is how copyright is meant to work. It encourages people to be creative by giving the person who creates the new work the rights to control its use.
If you are producing a new image from an existing one you need to be careful that the new work does not look like it was copied from the original. If someone held the two images up side by side, it should not be obvious that the original was used to create the new one. Even including a small part of the original image in your new work could still infringe copyright if the original is well known and the part copied is easily recognisable.
If you want to base a new image on an existing one, you also need to think about the interests of the creator of the original image. Under the moral rights system, which will soon become part of Australian copyright law, creators will be able to object to distortions, alterations and uses of their works which could reasonably be regarded as detracting from their professional standing. there are people out there that will try to tell you that if you change an image by 10% (or some say 30%) then you get copyright of the image... this is not true. accoring to the above it has to be unrecognisable....
...and in this the law sucks. you can grab any photo, remove the watermark if any, change it to mono, add some vignetting and then the copyright is yours. sound so wrong.
Another tack could be to get your niece (or you posing as your niece) to contact the chap who has them on facebook &say that she was after some more copies of x,y,z shots & had forgotten the photographers contact details but remembered him when she saw them on facebook. How much would an A3 be (or similarly big print that would definitely need the original to work from).
If/when he comes back with a price just beg off as more than you thought, if he ums & ahs then its a pretty good indication that he doesn't have the original files.
Maybe he was there helping & the original tog gave him the files when he moved on, or has some more tenuous but at least legal, claim to them
while on the topic i found this rather interesting read on this website: http://copyright.qantm.com.au/dig-copy-faq.htm#3
there are people out there that will try to tell you that if you change an image by 10% (or some say 30%) then you get copyright of the image... this is not true. according to the above it has to be unrecognisable....
...and in this the law sucks. you can grab any photo, remove the watermark if any, change it to mono, add some vignetting and then the copyright is yours. sound so wrong.
It is still a derived work. It's only because it is unrecognisable that people get away with it.
The moment I take another work (without permission) I'm infringing.
Even after I manipulate it beyond recognition I have still broken the law.
The act of taking is the point.
Proving the unrecognisable was based on my work is an issue.
Refer: Men at Work (I come from a land down under) and 'Kookaburra sits in she old gum tree' where MAW got done for what to me was a minuscule fragment of music that was unrecognisable.
for the record - copyright infringement is regarded as theft -:
"Website Copyright Infringement - Theft of Intellectual Property" case study from Australian Legal Firm
A bit OT
Back around 2002 I had developed some content for the company (Company A) I was working for (I had diagrammed our software development methodology and wrote up our customer engagement model etc.).
A new start Company B lifted that content, re-jigged it, changed the look and feel, but left a few bits that were unique to my work (It looked quite different).
We took lots of screen shots and gathered as much evidence as we could.
Our parent company had deep pockets, so we went after Company B full bore.
(Legal letters, take down notices, damages etc. Company A lawyers were as mean as junkyard dogs and had a reputation as such)
We won, they took down all the stolen content, paid our lawyers fees and compensation.
Because they gave in quickly (they were caught red handed) it cost them much less than if they had tried to fight us.
Lessons:
a. If you do go legal, get the meanest lawyers you can (the type that won't get eaten by Sharks, or bitten by Rottweilers, because the Sharks and Rottweilers are afraid of them)
b. Collect as much evidence as you can, i.e. make sure you have a solid case
Longshots
16-02-2011, 1:58pm
Hmm, seems it is, my apologies... maybe I'm thinking of UK law.
I've always understood theft to involve depriving someone of something. Which obviously isn't the case in most copyright disputes.
Thanks for your comment.
And from a very personal view - in my opinion if some cheapskate company likes my image and uses it without paying me, then I can assure you that they are depriving me of lost income. So in my view, its obvious that if someone breaches my copyright there is a deprivation, and that is exactly what a legal would persue first.
Longshots
16-02-2011, 2:04pm
while on the topic i found this rather interesting read on this website: http://copyright.qantm.com.au/dig-copy-faq.htm#3
there are people out there that will try to tell you that if you change an image by 10% (or some say 30%) then you get copyright of the image... this is not true. accoring to the above it has to be unrecognisable....
...and in this the law sucks. you can grab any photo, remove the watermark if any, change it to mono, add some vignetting and then the copyright is yours. sound so wrong.
Thanks Ving aka David
You were right. It was sooooo wrong. Thanks to those (not sure if you want to be named ? - but huge round of applause from me) who immediately took action and sent emails out to all concerned. That information has now been removed from this educational institutions website.
Personally I'm disgusted with a Brisbane educational establishment offering advice on promoting something that is clearly illegal. Yet another sign of the times.
Thanks to those (not sure if you want to be named ? - but huge round of applause from me) who immediately took action and sent emails out to all concerned.
The bad advice is still there. Lets see what happens.
http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/music/david-lachapelle-sues-rihanna-over-sm/story-e6frfn09-1226006723834
FASHION photographer David LaChapelle is suing singer Rihanna, claiming her latest video has directly appropriated eight of his famous images.
According to LaChapelle's suit, the video for single S&M copies the "composition, total concept, feel, tone, mood, theme, colours, props, settings, decors, wardrobe and lighting" of his work.
Longshots
16-02-2011, 3:01pm
The bad advice is still there. Lets see what happens.
Is it ? Links dont work for me. And if it is - I'd be happy to speak to them personally.
Is it ? Links dont work for me. And if it is - I'd be happy to speak to them personally.
This: http://copyright.qantm.com.au/dig-copy-faq.htm#3
Longshots
16-02-2011, 3:10pm
Nope definitely removed from my perspective:
"
Sorry,"copyright.qantm.com.au" does not exist or is not available.
Please try your search again in the box below.
"
And just personally spoken to the Admin Manager of Qantm, who also said that as soon it was drawn to their attention they removed it immediately. They apologised unreservedly and agreed that it should never have been there. Thanks for highlighting the issue and drawing their attention to the problem :)
gee! they yanked that down quickly! :eek:
James T
16-02-2011, 4:05pm
Thanks for your comment.
And from a very personal view - in my opinion if some cheapskate company likes my image and uses it without paying me, then I can assure you that they are depriving me of lost income. So in my view, its obvious that if someone breaches my copyright there is a deprivation, and that is exactly what a legal would persue first.
Just to be clear, I always saw theft and copyright infringement as two distinct offences, both equally illegal though.
From what I knew in the UK; the crime of theft involved taking something from the owner with a view to permanently depriving them of it. So you couldn't be charged with theft of a digital photograph (maybe unless you stole all the media the file and any copies were stored on, not sure how that would work).
"Stealing" an image file would always just boil down to copyright issues... loss of income, etc may all come under that umbrella - which usually ends up costing the perpetrator more than common theft anyway. ;)
Cheers for the correction though, being able to shout thief at people always helps scare 'em off. ;)
Good job on sorting the qantm issue so quickly too. :th3:
reaction
16-02-2011, 4:33pm
do they have permission from your niece to display those on fb? she can ask why they have her photos
ricstew
17-02-2011, 8:29am
Jeez I cant believe this thread is still going! The information on copyright and percentages is very good.
To recap.I know who took the original pics, I know who is claiming them as their own but at this stage I am sitting on it........there is a whole lot of background stuff that I dont want to get involved with...........such is small town life :)
cheers
Jan
Tannin
25-05-2011, 12:34pm
copyright infringement is regarded as theft
I've always understood theft to involve depriving someone of something. Which obviously isn't the case in most copyright disputes.
Errr ... you mean it obviously is the case - you are depriving the owner of (amongst other possible things) the money that he would have earned from selling that work.
FALCONLORD
25-05-2011, 1:42pm
There is an easy solution to this that does not embroil you in the scenario, and does not leave you open to any claims of slander.
In FB, browse to the page of the person claiming to have taken the pics.
Take a screen capture of the page, and some screen captures of the individual pics.
E-Mail them to the person you believe took the pics with a polite FYI.
Do not state that they are anything, just comment on the similarity to there own pics.
It is then up to the professional photographer to decide on if they wish to pursue it. You have not made any accusations, just a commented on similarity.
Errr ... you mean it obviously is the case - you are depriving the owner of (amongst other possible things) the money that he would might have have earned from selling that work.
James T
25-05-2011, 4:07pm
Jeez I cant believe this thread is still going!...
And on it goes still... :D
Errr ... you mean it obviously is the case - you are depriving the owner of (amongst other possible things) the money that he would have earned from selling that work.
Maybe I should've been clearer. Depriving someone of the thing they are charged with thieving. Damages lost income and whatever else obviously (or perhaps not so obviously) would come separately.
If you stole someone's car, and then he lost his job because he couldn't get there.. you wouldn't be charged with stealing his job as well is what I'm saying.
Errr ... you mean it obviously is the case - you are depriving the owner of (amongst other possible things) the money that he would might have have earned from selling that work.
In the eyes of the law, there is no "might" here. You stole it, therefore (in law) the damages DO exist - there is no "might".
Maybe I should've been clearer. Depriving someone of the thing they are charged with thieving.
Exactly. The money they owe you for use of the work. That is your money, they have deprived you of it. In law, there are no two ways about it.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.