Yet another "stolen" photo

Bill Graham wrote:

"Eric Miller" wrote in message
.. .
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%2F2009%2Frun%2F_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.

daveFaktor wrote:

...
use images taken by ametures (sic) they have no intention of paying for.

Seriously Eric...
You are using free software to publish your site
Free software for your statistics counter
and you are ****ed off someone took your photo for free and gave you
free publicity that most commercial site owners would crawl over
broken glass to get. What *IS* your problem?

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.

On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 08:43:24 +1000, daveFaktor wrote:
: 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

Paul Furman wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:

"Eric Miller" wrote in message
.. .
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%2F2009%2Frun%2F_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.

--
You don't stop laughing because you grow old,
You grow old because you stop laughing!

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.

--
John McWilliams

On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 21:56:15 -0700, John McWilliams wrote:
: 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

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:50:29 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote:
:
: "Eric Miller" wrote in message
: .. .
: 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%2F2009%2Frun%2F_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

On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 10:11:10 +1000, daveFaktor wrote:
: Paul Furman wrote:
: Bill Graham wrote:
:
: "Eric Miller" wrote in message
: .. .
: 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%2F2009%2Frun%2F_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

On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 10:37:57 +1000, daveFaktor wrote:
: 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%2F2009%2Frun%2F_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

Eric Miller wrote:
I tried to stop the hotlinking

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.