Yet another "stolen" photo

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Eric Miller, Jun 18, 2009.

  1. Eric Miller

    daveFaktor Guest


    That's half the fun Bob. Focus man... Keep your eye on the ball or
    you'll miss all the fun.
     
    daveFaktor, Jun 20, 2009
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. Eric Miller

    daveFaktor Guest

    What the hell are you on about Jesus?
    Me?
    Explain to you?
    Not bloody likely I'll explain anything to an idiot.
     
    daveFaktor, Jun 20, 2009
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. Eric Miller

    Paul Furman Guest

    I would ask them to add a credit immediately under the photo with a link
    to the larger image on your site. That invites people to browse your
    work in context and boosts your search engine rating just having that
    link. Win-win.

    I posted a similar thread last year about a similar event where a local
    CBS radio affiliate posted one of my photos without asking... they
    credit me but link to the event's web site who I had given permission to
    post the photos. This year the event organizers got a better gallery
    system that links direct to my photos as posted on flicker and they also
    added a link to my web site (apart from flickr) so that works out
    nicely. If another newspaper wants to use a pic, it'll be clear that the
    event doesn't own them.

    But to share your grumble, it should be common courtesy when using a
    photo on a blog to at least link to the photo on your site. I mean when
    you click the photo... it pops up as the straight jpeg on their
    server... maybe the blogging software is just lame that way and it's not
    simple to add a meaningful link. Anyways, the blogger should take a look
    at how to do that and do so in the future. It gets tedious explaining to
    people all the time.

    I'm going through redesigning my personal web site to be a
    photographer's web site, it has evolved through a few topics over the
    last decade <g>. One task is to write up simple terms and instructions
    for linking, copyright, etc. so the explaining or negotiating process
    doesn't become a tedious passive-agressive-tension-filled nuisance and
    so that prospective paying customers can get a quick concise answer to
    what sort of terms & prices might apply. I've had numerous requests to
    use my photos for free over the years and few knew anything about
    copyright, so it takes a while to explain that there need to be limits
    on the scope of the use. Newspapers these days have contracts saying
    they can re-use your work in other ways. They could publish a book as a
    compilation of articles or sell framed prints, etc.

    It's like getting blood from a turnip with the publishers though in
    recent years. For the time being I'm willing to give them up for free
    just to build a decent looking portfolio of published work. Available
    paid on assignment of course in the future <g>.
     
    Paul Furman, Jun 21, 2009
    #43
  4. Eric Miller

    Jeff R. Guest

    Kind'a like the free (trial version) of the slideshow software you use on
    your allegedly "commercial" website, huh Douggie?

    BTW - your site advertises that it will soon publish details of your 2008
    "expo". Bit late maybe?

    Do you ever publicise your work, or are you (justly) terrified of the
    ridicule?
     
    Jeff R., Jun 21, 2009
    #44
  5. Eric Miller

    Robert Coe Guest

    : Robert Coe wrote:
    :
    : > I'm sorry to still be so clueless when I've been in these newsgroups so
    : > long. But the names keep changing, and it's devilish hard to keep up.
    : >
    : > Bob
    :
    :
    : That's half the fun Bob. Focus man... Keep your eye on the ball or
    : you'll miss all the fun.

    I'm trying, Doug ... er, Dave, but I think you forgot to send out an
    announcement!

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jun 21, 2009
    #45
  6. Eric Miller

    daveFaktor Guest

    What a bloody hypocrite You are Paul.

    You stole my images and tried to copyright them for yourself after you
    altered them to degrade them from what I used them for to something you
    could show as fraud... (With a 640 Px image for Christ sake) and make
    out you'd discovered some fraud from me when I pointed out there was no
    image quality difference between a P&S and Canon DSLR worth the $3000
    price difference.

    It was you who committed the fraud buster and now you have the cheek to
    set yourself up as a reputable source on copyright? Get real Paul. You
    are nothing but a thief.

    Give us break mate. At least tell the guy you are an image thief
    yourself before setting out to lecture him on © copyright laws.
     
    daveFaktor, Jun 21, 2009
    #46
  7. D-Mac has periods of differing styles and content. When he gets angry,
    or possibly is drunk or hungover, he does revert to a single style and
    manner. Otherwise, I find him variably aimiable, amusing, helpful,
    repetitive, combative, etc. etc.
     
    John McWilliams, Jun 21, 2009
    #47
  8. Eric Miller

    Robert Coe Guest

    : JustaTroll wrote:
    : >
    : > It is Usenet after-all... D-Mac posted a message as (insert name here),
    : > much like other messages have been posted. D-Mac can change his
    : > "identity" as often as he wishes, some claim it is to avoid kill-files,
    : > he claims it is to prevent identity theft, YMMV. His posting style and
    : > or tone doesn't seem to change, which-by-the-way works the same as
    : > identifying a certain poster that advocates the use of CHDK in a certain
    : > brand of P&S camera.
    :
    : D-Mac has periods of differing styles and content. When he gets angry,
    : or possibly is drunk or hungover, he does revert to a single style and
    : manner. Otherwise, I find him variably aimiable, amusing, helpful,
    : repetitive, combative, etc. etc.

    I agree with that. Doug isn't a seriously boring PitA like the CHDK Troll or
    even Rich ("The Metallurgist") Anderson. If he didn't exist, we might even be
    tempted to invent him.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jun 21, 2009
    #48
  9. Eric Miller

    Robert Coe Guest

    :
    : : > The following is a link to one of my photos posted on another website
    : > without permission.
    : >
    : > <http://dailyviews.runnersworld.com/2009/06/madam-your-shorts-appear-to-be-sudsy.html>
    : >
    : > The following is the link to the photo on my website.
    : >
    : > <http://www.dyesscreek.com/events/index.php?display=ict/2009/run/_mg_8890.JPG>
    : >
    : > I do find it mildly annoying that no one asked my permission before using
    : > it. I don't make any money off these race photos but still, I never like
    : > it when they are used like this. I'm not going to be threatening action
    : > against anyone but does anyone have any suggestions about how to approach
    : > the offender in this situation?
    : >
    : > Eric Miller
    : > www.dyesscreek.com
    : >
    : >
    : >
    : They should publish it again, and give you credit for it the second time. It
    : seems to me that that's the least they could do in the way of an apology.

    This is starting to get out of hand; it's time for a reality check.

    The picture is mediocre, as grabshots often are. (Look at the shadow on the
    runner's face.) But it's moderately interesting and has gotten the wide
    circulation that Eric probably only dreamed of when he agreed to photograph
    the race.

    Eric should now write to those who have posted the picture, explaining that
    the runner inadvertently failed to include a caption with his "dba"
    identification, so here it is; will they please add it? Then he should write
    to the runner (since he evidently knows who she is) and thank her for helping
    him publicize his picture, gently pointing out that the photographer should be
    credited in such cases. Then at his next opportunity to photograph a similar
    event, he should enthusiastically volunteer to do so, citing his previous work
    and asking only that he be given proper credit for any pictures that get
    posted.

    This is an opportunity to be exploited, mot a problem to be solved. I sense,
    from other articles in the thread, that Eric has pretty much come around to
    this view. Now it's time for the rest of us to stop encouraging him to doubt
    that course of action.

    Just my 2¢ worth.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jun 21, 2009
    #49
  10. Eric Miller

    Robert Coe Guest

    : Paul Furman wrote:
    : > Bill Graham wrote:
    : >>
    : >> : >>> The following is a link to one of my photos posted on another website
    : >>> without permission.
    : >>>
    : >>> <http://dailyviews.runnersworld.com/2009/06/madam-your-shorts-appear-to-be-sudsy.html>
    : >>>
    : >>> The following is the link to the photo on my website.
    : >>>
    : >>> <http://www.dyesscreek.com/events/index.php?display=ict/2009/run/_mg_8890.JPG>
    : >>>
    : >>> I do find it mildly annoying that no one asked my permission before
    : >>> using it. I don't make any money off these race photos but still, I
    : >>> never like it when they are used like this. I'm not going to be
    : >>> threatening action against anyone but does anyone have any
    : >>> suggestions about how to approach the offender in this situation?
    : >>>
    : >> They should publish it again, and give you credit for it the second
    : >> time. It seems to me that that's the least they could do in the way of
    : >> an apology.
    : >
    : > I would ask them to add a credit immediately under the photo with a link
    : > to the larger image on your site. That invites people to browse your
    : > work in context and boosts your search engine rating just having that
    : > link. Win-win.
    : >
    : > I posted a similar thread last year about a similar event where a local
    : > CBS radio affiliate posted one of my photos without asking... they
    : > credit me but link to the event's web site who I had given permission to
    : > post the photos. This year the event organizers got a better gallery
    : > system that links direct to my photos as posted on flicker and they also
    : > added a link to my web site (apart from flickr) so that works out
    : > nicely. If another newspaper wants to use a pic, it'll be clear that the
    : > event doesn't own them.
    : >
    : > But to share your grumble, it should be common courtesy when using a
    : > photo on a blog to at least link to the photo on your site. I mean when
    : > you click the photo... it pops up as the straight jpeg on their
    : > server... maybe the blogging software is just lame that way and it's not
    : > simple to add a meaningful link. Anyways, the blogger should take a look
    : > at how to do that and do so in the future. It gets tedious explaining to
    : > people all the time.
    : >
    : > I'm going through redesigning my personal web site to be a
    : > photographer's web site, it has evolved through a few topics over the
    : > last decade <g>. One task is to write up simple terms and instructions
    : > for linking, copyright, etc. so the explaining or negotiating process
    : > doesn't become a tedious passive-agressive-tension-filled nuisance and
    : > so that prospective paying customers can get a quick concise answer to
    : > what sort of terms & prices might apply. I've had numerous requests to
    : > use my photos for free over the years and few knew anything about
    : > copyright, so it takes a while to explain that there need to be limits
    : > on the scope of the use. Newspapers these days have contracts saying
    : > they can re-use your work in other ways. They could publish a book as a
    : > compilation of articles or sell framed prints, etc.
    : >
    : > It's like getting blood from a turnip with the publishers though in
    : > recent years. For the time being I'm willing to give them up for free
    : > just to build a decent looking portfolio of published work. Available
    : > paid on assignment of course in the future <g>.
    :
    : What a bloody hypocrite You are Paul.
    :
    : You stole my images and tried to copyright them for yourself after you
    : altered them to degrade them from what I used them for to something you
    : could show as fraud... (With a 640 Px image for Christ sake) and make
    : out you'd discovered some fraud from me when I pointed out there was no
    : image quality difference between a P&S and Canon DSLR worth the $3000
    : price difference.
    :
    : It was you who committed the fraud buster and now you have the cheek to
    : set yourself up as a reputable source on copyright? Get real Paul. You
    : are nothing but a thief.
    :
    : Give us break mate. At least tell the guy you are an image thief
    : yourself before setting out to lecture him on © copyright laws.

    Paul is an "image thief"?? When did that happen? He's not one of those two
    dudes you're at war with, is he?

    Maybe I'm getting too old for this group; I seem to be having trouble keeping
    up. I always thought of Paul as just another camera nut, like me or the
    airplane pilot or the savage duck. Now you're telling us he's a thief. You
    haven't been reading too much Sherlock Holmes, have you?

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jun 21, 2009
    #50
  11. Eric Miller

    Robert Coe Guest

    : Eric Miller wrote:
    : > The following is a link to one of my photos posted on another website
    : > without permission.
    : >
    : > <http://dailyviews.runnersworld.com/2009/06/madam-your-shorts-appear-to-be-sudsy.html>
    : >
    : > The following is the link to the photo on my website.
    : >
    : > <http://www.dyesscreek.com/events/index.php?display=ict/2009/run/_mg_8890.JPG>
    : >
    : > I do find it mildly annoying that no one asked my permission before using
    : > it. I don't make any money off these race photos but still, I never like it
    : > when they are used like this. I'm not going to be threatening action against
    : > anyone but does anyone have any suggestions about how to approach the
    : > offender in this situation?
    : >
    : > Eric Miller
    : > www.dyesscreek.com
    : >
    : >
    : >
    :
    : Eric... Be grateful you got the credit. You did say you don't make any
    : money from taking these sort of photos. Unless you register the
    : copyright you can't do much more than use the DMCA to have the host take
    : the photo down... And then you won't have any recognition and probably
    : will get black listed by the publisher and maybe the event organiser who
    : may have been the one handing over the picture.
    :
    : http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html
    :
    : Now here's the facts. If you're interested in them. The lady in the
    : photo has a right to decide what happens to her picture when she is the
    : only identifiable person in it.
    :
    : Unless you got a model release (and a broad contractual agreement from
    : the promoter is not enough) from the lady... Not even you ...can sell
    : that picture without running the risk of being sued by her.
    :
    : Even though this may be an junior and unpaid event, you need a contract
    : with the promoter and model releases from every one you photograph
    : before you can independently claim copyright on a photo of a single person.
    :
    : The Canuks do it differently but in the good old US of A and Europe, you
    : can take a photo of anyone you want to (within confines of sexual and
    : harassment laws) but don't have any right to take someone's photo in a
    : competition or recognised event(including performances) without their
    : permission... Unless they are in a public group of people. There's a
    : tiny bit more there but that's the crux of it.
    :
    : It gets worse when you try to sell the shot or give it away in trade for
    : something. Without you having a model release, The lady can own you if
    : the image is published without he knowledge.
    :
    : Suit up mate. Get some documentation or put up with the flames. The
    : image is being used with full credits given and not to denigrate the
    : photographer or the subject. It comes under the heading of fair use.

    Stop clowning, Doug. Everybody here knows you're not a member of the U.S. Bar.
    Frankly, I don't think I'd even trust your reading of Australian law. Anyone
    who would accept you as an authority on American law is, quite simply, a fool.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jun 21, 2009
    #51
  12. Eric Miller

    Paul Furman Guest

    I would prefer that people hot-link if they are going to show my work.
    If for some reason I decide to retract the photo, I'm still in control
    and if someone links directly to the jpeg, they are linking to my site,
    not some random blog. When I find my photos hot-linked, I add a
    watermark to the image they display. Good advertising.
     
    Paul Furman, Jun 21, 2009
    #52
  13. Eric Miller

    Eric Miller Guest

    Take a look at the following, apply your web genius, and tell me why the
    display of this photograph, linked directly to a .php file is not a hotlink:

    <http://forum.slowtwitch.com/Slowtwi...hoto:_Careful_with_that_detergent!_P2379299/>

    You'll have to scroll down a ways to see the hotlinked image.
    Nope. I am getting no increased site traffice due to the Runners World blog.
    None. Zero. Zip. No has clicked on the link to my site, there is not need,
    the photo is there for them to see already.
    You need to read a little more carefully, or just learn to read. Notice the
    following quote from the post to which you are responding:

    "Several other sites have hotlinked to the photo on my site."
    You haven't begun to touch on the free software that I use on my website
    which includes:

    Apache
    CentOS Linux
    Mysql
    Phpgraphy
    Nvu
    Php
    ImageMagick
    and countless others.

    But one that isn't free, is the one you guessed at incorrectly; I pay for
    Statcounter. How using free software as intended, for free, equates with
    publishing images without permission of the copyright holder is beyond my
    meager abilities to reason.

    I suppose I should take more seriously being criticised for being less than
    elated to have others publish my images without my permission and, in some
    cases, without giving me any credit, but considering the source, I believe
    that I can live just fine without doing so.

    Eric Miller
    www.dyesscreek.com
     
    Eric Miller, Jun 21, 2009
    #53
  14. Eric Miller

    Eric Miller Guest

    Alan, I accept your criticism. However, I have contacted Runners World and
    now NYCTri and obtained a reasonably satisfactory resolution (incidentally,
    both offered to take down the photo if I insisted - I didn't). This
    particular branch of the thread deals with hotlinking, something for which I
    don't hold the Slowtwitch Forums web publisher responsible, or any other
    forum owner where a hotlink is inserted into a thread reply. I could put a
    stop to it using the suggestions some have made regarding replacing the
    image, but this presents a different problem because I did purposefully
    publish the image and it has been linked to on a lot of running sites.
    Changing the image would somewhat defeat the purpose of my publishing it to
    begin with. I still don't care for the hotlinking, but I can live with it
    since the load on my server has died back down to a moderate level and
    because I don't want to defeat the existing links to my site.

    My original post asked for suggestions regarding approaching those who have
    used my photos without permission. I indicated that I was "mildly annoyed"
    as a result of the inappropriate use. That other's seem to infer more deep
    emotion was not something that I intended by using the word "stolen" in
    quotes. The quotes were intended to imply that I was not asserting any
    literal meaning of that word. The use of the word stolen was also a
    redundant allusion to a previous thread (and possibly an erroneous one since
    I'm not certain I used the word "stolen" but I seem to recall doing so) in
    which I discussed the printing, without permission, of one of my race photos
    by a local newspaper.

    Eric Miller
    www.dyesscreek.com
     
    Eric Miller, Jun 21, 2009
    #54
  15. Eric Miller

    tony cooper Guest

    Just out of curiosity, did you contact the runner herself and request
    that she provide credit to you for the photograph if she continued to
    link to it? If so, what was her reaction?

    My assumption would be that she didn't have the slightest idea that
    what she was doing was in any way wrong.
     
    tony cooper, Jun 21, 2009
    #55
  16. Eric Miller

    Eric Miller Guest

    She actually contacted me - she did not have the slightest idea that she
    did anything wrong. We discussed her sending the photo to the website.
    She actually indicated that she had asked each website to give me an
    attribution. One had, one had not. I don't fault her, she simply didn't
    know, as most do not, about copyright issues and/or photographers'
    proprietary feelings about their photos. I don't fault her at all and
    didn't take her to task about it. She indicated that she will ask anyone
    she sends it to to credit me and link back to my website.

    Publishers, however, should know better and, I believe, most do. That is
    why I posed the question about approaching the publisher of the photo.
    It certainly isn't my purpose to keep people from seeing the photograph,
    I'd just like credit and a plug for my website in exchange for anyone
    else's publishing of it.

    When I first asked the question, I was still a bit annoyed about seeing
    my image on someone else's website without my permission even though
    they credited me. At this point, as long as I get credit for web
    publication and my website is linked, I don't care.

    By contrast, if my local newspaper uses any more of my images, I'll send
    them a letter threatening to sue or serve them with a small claims
    petition depending on my mood.

    Eric Miller
    www.dyesscreek.com
     
    Eric Miller, Jun 22, 2009
    #56
  17. Eventually the penny will drop Jeffrey old boy... Until then keep
    fantasising. It's good for keeping senility at bay and quickens the
    orgasm ...It'll save you getting too many blisters.

    You really are a total idiot, aren't you? For a while I though - Nah...
    He knows but he's keeping quiet about it. But you really don't have a
    clue. You have no idea what a belly laugh that gives me every time you
    post some of your crap.

    Next time you walk around in Penrith, keep your eyes open! ROTFL.
     
    Willie Stroker, Jun 22, 2009
    #57
  18. Eric... That link is to your web page, not the image. It's not a
    "hot-link" it's just a link to a page containing the image. Your site
    statistics would show every item on the web page, including any header
    images and off-site logos you have on the site as being accessed.
     
    Willie Stroker, Jun 22, 2009
    #58
  19. Eric Miller

    Jeff R. Guest

    Do you have to be so vulgar, Douggie?
    Can you keep the sexual angle out of your "attacks".
    I prefer to be able to respect my antagonists, but you're just making that
    impossible.

    "Willie Stroker" indeed.
    Your obsessions are quite sad for a chap of your advanced age.
     
    Jeff R., Jun 22, 2009
    #59
  20. Eric Miller

    Eric Miller Guest

    They don't.

    Eric Miller
    www.dyesscreek.com
     
    Eric Miller, Jun 23, 2009
    #60
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.