Two of my images have been stolen

treeman

treeman

Messages
4,094
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
No
Thank the lord above, someone has finally stolen my images to use on a website.

I was beginning to get paranoid I was a really rubbish photographer, everyone else seems to be having images nicked, and no one wanted mine :shake:

But tonight, at last, I've found two!!! :clap:

Im so happy :love:






Don't worry, tomorrow I'll write the letters :rules:
 
treeman said:
Thank the lord above, someone has finally stolen my images to use on a website.

I was beginning to get paranoid I was a really rubbish photographer, everyone else seems to be having images nicked, and no one wanted mine :shake:

But tonight, at last, I've found two!!! :clap:

Im so happy :love:






Don't worry, tomorrow I'll write the letters :rules:
Click to expand...



Lucky sod. Nobody ever nicks mine. :(
 
fabs said:
You just look on the internet and if you see any you need, you just right click and...............oh, sorry, that's not what you meant, was it? :nuts:
Click to expand...

:LOL:
 
Ive had at least 48 (at last count) of my shots stolen spent hours chasing them up, did it get me anywhere no, they just removed them from the sites (all commercial foreign sites) I did get screenshots but they just ignore all my correspondences,

I wouldnt be pleased or happy that someones nicked my images :(
 
Last edited:
I have found one of my images on a website on Friday. i have emailed the person and also the person who made the website with a letter, screen shots and a nice invoice!
 
Just Dave said:
Ive sent loads off Anthony dont hold your breath, but good luck (y)
Click to expand...

Thanks. iv gave them 7 days to pay but if no joy then i will have to get my other half who works for a solicitors to write a letter to them.
 
duttytd said:
Thanks. iv gave them 7 days to pay but if no joy then i will have to get my other half who works for a solicitors to write a letter to them.
Click to expand...


Let me have her details, I have someone who's due a bit of bad news in the post :D
 
If they are using photobucket to host stolen pictures i think you can contact photobucket direct as technically they are also breaking the law, in which case ive been told them will delete the users account
 
4737carlin said:
If they are using photobucket to host stolen pictures i think you can contact photobucket direct as technically they are also breaking the law, in which case ive been told them will delete the users account
Click to expand...

All mine are commercial sites that where hosting my images on their servers, not hot linked, just blatantly stolen, some hadnt even bothered removing my copyright
 
Last edited:
I found loads of my images on a website, I think it was called Flickr, yeah thats the one! Almost every photo I had taken was on there, coudn't believe it!

Seriously, I've had one image used without my permission on a comercial website. I'm just glad some of my work has been deemed high enough quality to be used.
 
How on earth do you find your images on obscure websites even if they have been stolen? There is obviously no trail.
 
I've just done that search and it's really odd - other peoples photos have come up - but just from where I have commented on them
 
You won't find every use through searching, there's a big chunk of luck needed as well. You can maximise your chances of finding something by switching between searches, using Google Image, Tineye, etc to reverse search images, and the standard text searches from Google, Yahoo, etc to search for your name, username, titles/text that you associate with specific images, etc.

Some people ask why bother, and say that for them credit/appreciation is enough. Well, if someone is making money from your image why shouldn't it be you? My latest find was a rail industry trade publication where one of my older CC licensed images (no commercial, no derivatives, attribution required) was being used as a 1/4-page banner headline (after having had the watermark cropped off). When I contacted them I got the response, "We don't pay for images from Flickr". And right enough, almost every edition of their magazine is illustrated with a handful of CC licensed images taken from Flickr.

They said it again in writing on the compliment slip attached to the cheque they sent when I invoiced them.

I don't know about you, but I find that the odd unexpected cheque can come in handy..
 
Pegasus2 said:
I found loads of my images on a website, I think it was called Flickr, yeah thats the one! Almost every photo I had taken was on there, coudn't believe it!

Seriously, I've had one image used without my permission on a comercial website. I'm just glad some of my work has been deemed high enough quality to be used.
Click to expand...

thats not the point is it

it is theft
 
Pegasus2 said:
I found loads of my images on a website, I think it was called Flickr, yeah thats the one! Almost every photo I had taken was on there, coudn't believe it!

Seriously, I've had one image used without my permission on a comercial website. I'm just glad some of my work has been deemed high enough quality to be used.
Click to expand...

If you displayed prints in a local gallery, would you be similarly chuffed if someone walked out with one without paying? How would you feel if you walked past a gallery/shop and they were selling prints/cards of one of your flickr pictures?
 
OMG I am well mad as some web site has used one of my pictures... Now do you write an email and a invoice for use of photograph?
 
daren74 said:
OMG I am well mad as some web site has used one of my pictures... Now do you write an email and a invoice for use of photograph?
Click to expand...
get screen shots and write a letter something like this

__________________

Dear Sir/Madam:

This letter is to provide you with notice that you are using, on your website/blog, copyright protected photographs to which I own right and title thereto. This is original content and I am the photographer and copyright holder of said image/s. Use of copyright protected material without permission is illegal under copyright laws.

Your illegal use of (link to photo/s and paste copy of photo at end of letter) photograph/s at (include URL link) is originally from my website/blog namely, (name of website/blog page) at (link to your website/blog page). Any unauthorized publication, reproduction or dissemination of the photograph/s constitutes an infringement of my copyright and exposes you, and anyone else acting in concert with you, to civil liability, damages, injunctive relief and reimbursement of all attorneys fees and costs incurred by me in connection with any copyright infringement action. Furthermore, if any monies are/were paid for the purchase of the said photograph/s, you will be engaged in the purchase of stolen property.

Anyone who publishes, disseminates, displays or otherwise exploits the photograph/s will be liable for substantial compensatory damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief. If you continue to publish or disseminate any of the photograph/s, I will take further legal action to protect my rights, including the filing of a lawsuit seeking compensatory and punitive damages, statutory damages for copyright violations, and attorney’s fees if the following conditions are not abided by:

1. Make the image clickable redirecting to my site with a linked copyright notice, only after receiving my express written consent.
2. Pay the required fee (charge depending on use) according to the attached invoice
3. Remove the image and post a note apologising for the unauthorised use of the photograph/s.

Failure to comply with the above conditions I appeal as follows:

a) If you or any of your employees or agents are/have been approached and offered the right to acquire and publish the photograph/s, or are approached in any way with regard to the photos, I ask that you immediately contact me at (your email address) so that the matter may be referred to the appropriate authorities; and

b) That you desist from exploiting, publishing, posting, distributing, or otherwise using or disseminating (with or without monetary charge) the stolen photograph/s, through any venue or medium.

Please govern yourself accordingly.

This letter does not purport to constitute a complete or exhaustive statement of all of my rights, contentions or legal theories. Nothing contained herein is intended as, nor should it be deemed to constitute, a waiver or relinquishment of any of my rights or remedies, whether legal or equitable, all of which are hereby expressly reserved.

Sincerely

Name
Title
Contact details

Encl.:
Photograph/screenshots
Invoice
 
my image has been removed from the website, I send another email today saying I noticed it has been removed but they will still need to pay me for damages.
 
duttytd said:
my image has been removed from the website, I send another email today saying I noticed it has been removed but they will still need to pay me for damages.
Click to expand...

What "damages"? You'll get ignored if you don't get the terminology correct.



I've been asked how I managed to get payment from R*** M**** by PM, but I'll put it here as it might be useful. Credit to Alias on 28DL for the basics of this.

  1. Find out who owns the website/magazine/book/etc. Search for a phone number and an address. If it's the sort of website that doesn't advertise a phone number or address it's unlikely you'll get paid.
  2. Decide if this is worth pursuing. Don't waste your time.
  3. Ring up, say that you have an invoice to send in for unauthorised use of a photo and ask who it needs to be sent for the attention of. Do not debate the issue, just get the name and confirm the address.
  4. Type out an invoice and post it RMSD.
  5. Wait a few days, ring up to check when they will be sending the payment.
  6. If you don't get payment, pursue the legal options (see the original thread by Alias, I'm not repeating it all here and I've never used these options myself).

A sample invoice, if in doubt look at the invoices you receive (bills). You don't strictly need a covering letter, but if you do use one keep it short and to the point, "Please find enclosed invoice for restrospective licencing of image.. .. used in.. .. on date.. .. I look forward to your prompt payment... Yours Sincerely.. ..".

Don't engage in moral debates if you want to get paid, at least not until after the cheque has cleared.

<Insert Letterhead>

INVOICE​
Invoice to:
<name>
<company>
<address 1>
<address 2>
<town/city>
<county>
<postcode>

Invoice Number: <number>
Invoice Date: <date>
Invoice Reference: <reference>

To unauthorised use of image <image name> by <user name> on Flickr. Breach of Creative Commons Attribution, Non-commercial, No Derivative Works license. Attribution incorrectly given, use in a commercial or trade magazine, derivative work created (cropped, text added, water-mark removed).
Retrospective license for single use in print and online in <publication title>, publication date <publication date>, page <page no>, and online edition.
Stock picture rate C, trade magazine ¼-page and web use
Print use £ <print price>
Web use £ <web price>
Total £ <total price>


<Your name>
<Your address 1>
<Your address 2>
<your town/city>
<your county>
<your postcode>
Tel: <telephone>
Email: <email>

All payments to be made within 30 days of the date of invoice. Late payments will incur a 10% charge and will be charged interest under the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998.

PLEASE MAKE PAYMENT BY BACs to <your name>
Bank <your bank>
Sort code <your sort code>
Account number <your account>
Cheques payable to <your name>
Click to expand...

btw, I don't like Just Dave's sample letter, but if it's worked for him give it a try. Too wordy for a simple "pay up or delete" message for me.
 
weybourne said:
If you displayed prints in a local gallery, would you be similarly chuffed if someone walked out with one without paying? How would you feel if you walked past a gallery/shop and they were selling prints/cards of one of your flickr pictures?
Click to expand...

That is a different scenario, one which I would take action against.

I'm not a professional, just bearly an ammateur. For the time being, i'm ok with it. The company in question is small and appears to only have started a few years ago, i'm sure the last thing they want is someone winging them invoices for infringed material.

Thats not saying that I disagree with protecting your work, by all means you should.
 
London Headshots said:
Worst logic ever.
Click to expand...

You've obviously never debated with a religious person then!! ;) ;)

Seriously though, Pegasus2 wasn't offering logic, just an opinion. Regardless of anything else, many of us would find it flattering to have someone want to use our work. It's perfectly possible (and logical) to be pleased someone wants your photo's, while at the same time being p'd off that they're not prepared to pay for them or even ask for permission - the two are unrelated.

So here's a question; if I wanted to offer some kind of commercial photography service free of charge or very cheap, perhaps as a loss leader, to establish a reputation, or to gain experience, would that be wrong? Is it so different to an amateur saying "I'm not bothered because I'm flattered"? It could hurt other professional togs for sure, but aren't they competitors not friends? Doesn't anything else amount to illegal price fixing?

I'm not saying that it's right to steal stuff - I personally would challenge that even if I didn't want to make money from it - just that agreeing to give it away for nothing might not be as illogical as you suggest? I think maybe there's too much expectation of a "band of brothers" amongst professional togs, when in fact they are owed nothing beyond legality by their competitors or by amateurs.
 
Southdowns said:
You've obviously never debated with a religious person then!! ;) ;)

Seriously though, Pegasus2 wasn't offering logic, just an opinion. Regardless of anything else, many of us would find it flattering to have someone want to use our work. It's perfectly possible (and logical) to be pleased someone wants your photo's, while at the same time being p'd off that they're not prepared to pay for them or even ask for permission - the two are unrelated.

So here's a question; if I wanted to offer some kind of commercial photography service free of charge or very cheap, perhaps as a loss leader, to establish a reputation, or to gain experience, would that be wrong? Is it so different to an amateur saying "I'm not bothered because I'm flattered"? It could hurt other professional togs for sure, but aren't they competitors not friends? Doesn't anything else amount to illegal price fixing?

I'm not saying that it's right to steal stuff - I personally would challenge that even if I didn't want to make money from it - just that agreeing to give it away for nothing might not be as illogical as you suggest? I think maybe there's too much expectation of a "band of brothers" amongst professional togs, when in fact they are owed nothing beyond legality by their competitors or by amateurs.
Click to expand...

It's more the "Aw shucks, I'm just happy they like my work!" logic. It's flawed.

A commercial entity won't use anything because they like it, they'll use it because it either fits the brief or they don't care either way. It'll never, ever be because they simply appreciate your fine photography skills. If your work fits the brief, it doesn't necessarily mean it's good, either. It could fit the brief simply because it's crap and they needed a crap photo.

Furthermore, the reason why it's wrong is because the company want to profit from your work. They are using your intellectual property, something you created, to drive profit into their business.

It's far more reasonable to be pleased they want to use your work, and then expect a fee for it. Given that they're using it to make money themselves. If they want to use your work, but not have to pay, then that's like being chuffed because someone likes your flat enough to live in it, but not enough to pay rent.

"Dude, I love what you've done with the place, so I decided to squat here"

"Wow, thanks for the compliment, you just make yourself at home, buddy, I'm only glad you played to my deep insecurities about my interior design skills!"

And your analogy about pricing is roughly as flawed. The reason why the prices are what they are is because it's calculated against a living wage and a cost of operation. It's not an arbitrary figure plucked out of the air. Someone giving their work away for free is likely not a professional, and probably has another full time job, so doesn't have to worry about the cost of being in business.

It's the same as Tesco driving out local butchers and greengrocers who can't compete with their business model. Tesco have market power because they have far less financial overheads in that sector because they generate profit elsewhere and don't need it to sustain their business. The butcher, however, makes all of his money that way, and suddenly finds himself earning less than enough to live, and eventually having to close his business because he simply doesn't have the negotiating power that Tesco does.

It's simple economics, and amateurs giving away their work for free are a scourge. The only reason is because of a total lack of confidence and desperate need for validation that their work is decent.
 
I'm not so sure. If it's useable for whatever purpose it's used for, unless that purpose is "look at this, this how NOT to do it", which is unlikely, then it has some merit of some type. It may not be artistic or technical merit, but it must have SOME merit otherwise the thief would just pick the first image that came to hand. Logically, if the "free" image has no merit, yet is used, a commercial paid for image needs to have no merit either, so there's no market to worry about anyway.

And if my image is judged to have some merit of some kind, it's perfectly reasonable to be pleased with that fact regardless of any other issue. Your flat analogy is a good one; if the squatter genuinely did like my decorating, I could easily be pleased by that, while at the same time having him evicted; the two things are unrelated.

Amateurs giving images away for free is not a scourge, any more than family offering free accommodation to your squatter is a scourge on the rental market. It is a problem, if you're a pro, I can see, but only if the free material DOES have merit. If it doesn't, then the pro should have NO difficulty differentiating himself and justifying his prices in the minds of his customers. If the free stuff has no merit, yet is still a problem for the pro, then he needs to ask himself if there really is a market for what he does, just like a plumber needs to ask whether or not there's a market for his services in the face of DIY.

The Tesco/small retailer analogy is another good one. Close to us we have a greater choice of large supermarkets than we need, as well as an infinite number of Tesco Express and similar stores, yet in the middle of all that is an independent newsagent/local store that's thriving. He's more expensive than the others too, so how does he do it? He does it by differentiating himself. He makes people WANT to buy from him. He makes it so that his offering is seen as the best value available; note not the cheapest, but the best value. And he doesn't worry one bit about the people who just want the cheapest roll of loo paper they can find; they're not his market. THAT is what pro togs need to do, not complain about amateur material being available free.

Free material will always be available. Photography, at least in many forms, is an art, so there will always be people trying to establish themselves, trying to get feedback, and yes, seeking validation. Why is that wrong? How does a pro know he's good enough to be a pro if he's never caught validation?

There will even be people who genuinely are in it for the art, not for money. Arguably, those people will make the best photographers.

My point about price wasn't to question where it comes from, but to say that it's not for amateurs or competitors to try and protect your pricing. If I could come up with a business model that gave people the photo's they want, for less money, and which made me a decent living without exploiting anyone, why not, even if it does drive less forward thinking competitors out of business? It's up to them to protect their businesses by being leaders not followers, not me.

BUT, none of that is to say that stealing is right, because it isn't. If you're saying amateurs should fight it just as much as pros do, then I agree with you. But if you're saying amateurs have no right to give away what they own, for any reason they want to, then I'm sorry but I think you're wrong.
 
A quick example. A friend of ours recently did wedding shots for a friend of a friend. I've seen them, and they're not a lot better than snap shots.

So who's deprived a professional tog of a living at that wedding? My friend because she did it for free? The couple because they chose a free amateur? Or, as I'd suggest, the local wedding togs because they didn't make their services compelling enough for the couple to WANT to pay?

I'm quite sure if I sat that couple down now and showed them what a pro could have done for them compared to what they got from my friend, they'd agree that it would have been worth it. So why did the pro/pro industry fail to give them that education before they made their decision?

Either that or they wouldn't see the merit, in which case there never was a market amongst such people anyway.
 
Last edited:
The wedding analogy is a good one, because there is clearly a wide differential in what different ends of the market can afford.

Equally, amongst those taking photos from online there is a wide variety in the ability to pay and a misunderstanding of just how cheap stock photography is. I'm pragmatic in my aproach to people using my images - I won't pursue a lost cause, I'll send a polite request to someone that I think doesn't know better, but I will invoice and pursue an business that is a repeat offender and uses Flickr as a free image bank on a monthly basis and has done so for several years without thinking anything of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top