Naming and shaming Facebook shoplifters- Reposted with mods

S

spidge

Well-Known Member
Joined
21 October 2009
Messages
225
Visit site
I guess most of you will have seen the recent thread in the competitive riders section of the forum regarding the shoplifting of Facebook images from photographers websites that attracted a lot of viewings and comments.

Following on from suggestions made here and on other forums I have starting publicising via my web site and when onsite at events that this shoplifting of copyrighted images by print screening is illegal. We now provide low res jpegs via email at £3 each on all our event galleries for the entire 2010 year so far.

I strengthened my watermark that is overlaid on all images, we briefly trialled a "because my riding SUCKS I thought this image wasn't worth buying so I stole it instead :-) from www.****.co.uk " watermark. Some people thought this hilarious, some thought it highly offensive and childish. So I've compromised on a watermark that says "IMAGE STOLEN FROM www.****.co.uk " and now include the date and venue on all photos on my web galleries.

It has certainly been widely discussed amongst the events that I have attended recently and I have seen examples where it has changed peoples attitudes and behaviour. I have now approached a few people via Facebook messaging requesting purchase or removal of the photos. Most have been apologetic and agree to remove the images, slightly shocked perhaps that they have been discovered even.

Yesterday at a BSJA event I was told by a customer that the new policy was not that effective. With a stand full of customers at the time, I felt it wrong to ask for names. What I have discovered this morning though is a pretty well known event rider locally who has my shoplifted images on both of her Facebook pages and her website. I have also found another local and less well known rider who by 8am this morning had managed to add another 8 images from the web gallery that went online last night of yesterdays BSJA event to her Facebook photo albums, to complement the 50+ other shoplifted/screen printed images she has of mine. Both of these have been contacted today with a friendly message.

Am I being too soft here? Should I perhaps just name and shame both on my web site, onsite at events and online via Facebook, forums etc. I am trying to work with the FB shoplifters rather than against them to retain any goodwill. Both have I know purchased prints in the past so I regard them as customers. This is an important issue to many photographers as it affects our livelihood. I suppose I have other choices available- invoice them for the images, report to Facebook, refuse to take their pictures in future or simply not put our images on the web and penalise our genuine customers who prefer to view and purchase online at their leisure.

Your comments are welcomed. I have reposted this as the forum administrator regarded this as advertising. It is not and I am happy that no reference is made to my website. What I am trying to make is a serious point that is affecting not just my own livelihood but that of countless equestrian photographers up and down the country. Mr Mod if this still needs modifying in any way I am happy to do so- please give me the chance to amend it rather than delete the entire thread. Thank you
 
I wondered what happened to the thread... I'd just posted a reply and next minute it had vanished!

The gist of my reply was comparing the old days of paper proofs with people having little digital pics that they've liberated from websites? Back in the day you'd have paper proofs posted out to you after which the photographer lost control of the proof and people were free to show the proof to family, friends, pin on the wall in the tackroom/office etc and then buy any particularly good prints. This is similar to what's happening now, it's just due to the web photographers can see the use people are making of these proofs, I honestly believe nothing has changed and you can make it totally impossible for people to get images off your websites but it won't increase/generate sales/revenue.

I freely admit I have liberated pro shots, but I also buy several shots from pretty much every show at great cost. Okay this doesn't give me the right to effectively steal but all I'm doing is all I would have done ten years ago with paper proofs. Ie had every shot of me in miniature with a watermark in my possession for my personal usage and buy the shots that I particularly like. Even if I couldn't get these small proofs I still wouldn't buy any more photos.

So in my mind you're barking up the wrong tree, yes it's wrong, but equally I believe the majority of those who take the images wouldn't buy them so you're not losing out, all you're doing is giving yourself a headache due to unnecessary worry. I truly believe that the lower sales you may be seeing are due to the advent of the digital age, both camcorders and stills, as any joe bloggs can now get a reasonable shot, maybe not an outstanding pro shot but adequate for their needs.

Just to clarify, by using "you" I don't mean you personally, but pro photographers in general.
 
This is a sideline which originated from something someone wrote on the thread in NL where they said someone had bought their pic from SFAS, scanned it and posted it on here:

I'd like to add to this, that I do think photographers are greedy about copyright too - if I buy the photo and have it on my wall, or for the sake of argument in my lorry, then anyone can walk through and see it, and you do not expect to be 'paid per view' of the image. So why then, when I buy it from you can I not put it on my facebook page or on a forum (adverts being different as I stand to gain financially so can see you want your cut - though I maintain that £12.25 per image is daylight robbery and will put me off!!) - it's no different to me inviting everyone at an event to walk into my lorry and see the picture, so why on earth should I have to pay to show people something I have bought? I am not making any money from doing so - if I buy a DVD and invite people round to watch it, I don't have to pay the film maker, the only time you need licences are when you stand to make money from it, same with music albums. I can copy those and play them, say on the beach, without having to pay again to do so.

This only really relates to pics you have bought with no intention of using commercially and want to show people via say FB or forums, not ones lifted which is what you are talking about in your OP.
 
Megabeast is right - you are directly in competition with the amateur wielding a digital camera. From what I've seen on here, quite a few of the HHOers themselves are pretty good and the equipment can be quite inexpensive so there's a lot more competition than there used to be.
 
This thread is in danger of repeating the whys and why-nots of the original thread, so I'll return to the question at hand. As you know, I support your stand against copyright theft and your (and other's) attempts at raising awareness of the law and rights of photographers (somewhat unsuccessfully it would appear). I am all for a name-and-shame policy but I recognise this could damage trade and reputation. However, if someone has been contacted, offered the chance to rectify the situation, offered your very generous amnesty option and still continues to break the law then they clearly won't listen to reason and action should be taken. Whether public name-and-shaming or legal action is your call.
 
Back to the OP - if a polite message doesn't get through then contact the event rider's sponsors and tell them it is portraying them in a bad light.

As for anything else, I really do think it should be £X per image and then when I have bought it I can do what I like with it as long as I don't profit from it, and if I do then I should have to pay a copyright fee.
 
SpottedCat said:
As for anything else, I really do think it should be £X per image and then when I have bought it I can do what I like with it as long as I don't profit from it, and if I do then I should have to pay a copyright fee.
Click to expand...

whole heartedly agree.
If one has paid 10-15 quid for an image, then they should be legally able to use it online e.g. fb and websites so long as they make no money from the image.

ETA - naming and shaming and those ''funny'' watermarks are all very well, but will not do your rep as a photographer and your ''popularity'' any favours, and you don't want to piss off your market..!
 
I haven't posted on any of these threads before as I didn't feel they were relevant to me - there is normally only 1 or 2 decent photos from events which I buy the print of so never considered buying the jpeg images.

Was lucky to have 14 pics at a recent event that I love and have been quoted £15 each for the jpegs :confused: I'm not a millionaire and can't afford that! To be honest I was going to buy a print and some other bits as well and that has completely put me off - think next time i'll just drag a friend along with a camera!

Quite upset about it to be honest as sharing things on facebook is the main aim of taking photos for me!
 
At Gatcombe, Stephen Sparkes provided me with a CD with 29 images (high res) with copy right permission for printing and internet forums, all for £50, a bargain I thought as there were a number of images I liked but couldn't decide between. Highly recommend this chap
 
*Disclaimer - although I have a law degree, I am in no way a lawyer and studied 15 years ago, in Scotland, which has a different legal system anyway* :rolleyes:

But - to the OP - I *think* that if you were to publicly out someone for "stealing" you could in fact find yourself in hot water. Whilst it may seem perfectly obvious to you what has happened, I'm fairly certain that unless found guilty in a court, you can't say someone has committed a crime. (Whenever you read a newspaper article about the guy who was found with the smoking gun, it's always "the suspect" or "the accused" not "the murderer".)

Please any actual real lawyers feel free to correct me, but just wanted to alert the OP (or any other 'togs) that libel laws may come in to play? :confused:
 
Thank you for all the replies. I don't think naming and shaming is the answer either to be quite frank. On Tuesday I did a bog standard BSJA event at a local venue. My initial costs involve towing my trailer to the venue, fuel to run my generator, rent to the venue and staff and print costs. At the end of a 10 hour day including travelling, setup and photography I then return home to create the web gallery and upload it to my web site. Call it a 12 hour day. By 8am Wednesday morning a rider who was at the event and who did not purchase pictures or jpegs that were available to view and buy on the Tuesday, has assiduously been onto my web site and screen printed 8 images that she has added to her facebook photoalbums for all her friends to see. This is to add to the collection of about 60 other images that she has of mine. Indeed she likes one of the new images so much that she chooses to use it as her new Facebook profile picture. This in spite of the fact that this image includes the text "IMAGE STOLEN FROM:" my web site address, the date and venue and copyright information.

I have posted this message to her:


I recently came across your facebook pages and am pleased to see you like my pictures enough to put them on your Facebook page.

Forgive me if you have actually purchased these pictures whilst onsite at a show, but I noticed that you are using copyrighted images of mine. Personally I think that is a bit naughty. You are in breach of copyright but I hope that by speaking to you this way we can understand each other’s position.

I don’t know if you are aware but we have recently starting offering a new product to cater for this sort of market. It is a reduced resolution, discreetly watermarked image or unwatermarked image for £3 and £5 respectively. You are able to purchase these for any image on our website going back to the beginning of the year 2010.

Please either arrange to purchase these images or remove them from your Facebook page. Honestly they look so much better without that copyright across the middle. I hope you understand my position and you are welcome to speak to me about it by email or on the phone.

Kind regards


As yet I have had no response. There are several possible actions I can now take of course, including doing nothing. Does this illustrate the extent of the problem we are facing. I don't believe for a minute that this was the only rider that would have harvested my images from that event.

Regarding competition for the customer £ from other cameras, still or video. It is a fact of life that the "official" event photographer has to live with. At a pony club teams showjumping class I photographed on Saturday I lined up the winning teams to take rosette pictures for sale and also to go into a local magazine. This must have been the pre-arranged signal for 28 sets of parents and siblings to collectively invade the ring and push me out the way to get their pictures on a huge variety of phones, compacts and SLR's.

Yes we know about competition.
 
I think the best thing, if they never buy your images, and always copy them to use on facebook, is to cease taking any photos of that rider at all. Keep to the worst offenders only, the rest you'll have to let go probably, although a little message saying 'did you know these are available without the watermark for £x?' might be a good idea.
 
Spidge - i can understand your fustration. But you do come across as not really enjoying your job, repetitively mentioning long working hours, perils of the job etc. I think that you possibly need to find a new employment avenue as you may appear to be trying to educate the masses. Yes no doubt fustrating but a positive work attitude may amount in increased sales, which may solve your problem :)
 
Because you potentially won't do anything, they won't.
You have to come across from the start as being someone who means business and won't take anything but removal within a certain time period nor them re-uploading at a future date - you haven't mentioned the consequences of what will happen if she doesn't comply, so she won't care. If there are no consequences, then it's not going to deter anyone.
Most people also don't actually understand copyright. Just adding a small sentence of what it is, what that is equivalent to & and what happens if they break it, could help.

You need to contact a lawyer (or whoever) and find out what legal action you can take against them, and follow through with the advice.
Which sucks if that is the only way to get them to listen, but it is how it is today.
 
Do you know for the most part I really love my job. If I could stay off this forum for long enough, I could actually print out the orders that I have received. But I take your points and yes I can be a bit Eeyore like on occasion. The specific reason I mentioned the hours was by way of illustration, not moaning as of course I realise I have a choice. The common assumption is that equine photography is money for old rope, maybe for some at some venues it is. For many it is not, hence why so few equine togs that you encounter are full time professionals.
 
Here's a business idea for you - why not start advertising that for every print sold, anyone who provides a USB stick (which of course they can buy from you if they don't have one on them ;) ) gets a FB quality JPG free? If they've bought the print, they may well scan it in anyway, but I must say I would be more likely to buy a print if it came with a free jpg for FB which meant I didn't have to bother scanning the picture in. You lose nothing because they've bought the print anyway and as I've said previously I do feel that anyone who buys a print should be allowed to let their friends look at it since you would not expect to be paid for everyone who comes into the kitchen.....is that a reasonable idea or do photographers still feel that is ripping them off?
 
Eluana said:
Because you potentially won't do anything, they won't.
You have to come across from the start as being someone who means business and won't take anything but removal within a certain time period nor them re-uploading at a future date - you haven't mentioned the consequences of what will happen if she doesn't comply, so she won't care. If there are no consequences, then it's not going to deter anyone.
Most people also don't actually understand copyright. Just adding a small sentence of what it is, what that is equivalent to & and what happens if they break it, could help.

You need to contact a lawyer (or whoever) and find out what legal action you can take against them, and follow through with the advice.
Which sucks if that is the only way to get them to listen, but it is how it is today.
Click to expand...

I can and do bite, honestly. You are perfectly correct of course, I was trying a friendly approach first which must of itself come as something of a shock to know that you are in the photographers searchlight.
 
SpottedCat said:
Here's a business idea for you - why not start advertising that for every print sold, anyone who provides a USB stick (which of course they can buy from you if they don't have one on them ;) ) gets a FB quality JPG free? If they've bought the print, they may well scan it in anyway, but I must say I would be more likely to buy a print if it came with a free jpg for FB which meant I didn't have to bother scanning the picture in. You lose nothing because they've bought the print anyway and as I've said previously I do feel that anyone who buys a print should be allowed to let their friends look at it since you would not expect to be paid for everyone who comes into the kitchen.....is that a reasonable idea or do photographers still feel that is ripping them off?
Click to expand...

My onsite event pricing structure has been redesigned with this very purpose in mind. Mine are based on volume, if you buy enough you get them free. Typically however we email the jpegs after the event simply as this is often easier for all concerned.
 
Speaking as someone who has a drawer full of photos bought from events I do think in many cases the £12 is way over what they are worth.
Yes I appreciate someone stands there all day but surely just agreeing to email the pic to someone would be a better way of doing it?
That way they get to see the images on the day on the viewing pages and can request the numbers they want.
I admit to having filched extra pics off websites with watermarks but only for storing on my own computer, and always after I have already bought and paid for several others.
I don't know what the solution is other than that, and I do understand your fury, but in many cases it's no different to me spending literally days on end sorting out our holiday cottage brochure wording only to find a rival had pinched it word for word two months' later..
I do agree with Spotted Cat, once paid for that image should belong to the buyer, not the photographer, because let's face it, you don't own them or their horse do you? They didn't give their permission for it to be taken so it has to work both ways, sometimes pics you take show the horse/rider in an unflattering light!
 
Rightly or wrongly, I've always been of the impression that once you have bought a pro pic, that you are allowed to do with it what you will as long as you don't profit from it. Any I might save from a website for my own reference library or to forward on to friends, have the watermarks and trademarks of the photographers all over them so that is bringing attention to their work is it not and getting it out to a wider public?

I do like SC's suggestion though.
 
can you not protect your website from photos being stolen? I know a few photographers friends websites if you tried to click and copy it comes up with a message you can't!!! Would solve your problems.
 
this could earn you more enemies than customers.

When i buy a pro pic, you've paid enough to get it printed and framed [usually in some usless little paper thing which breaks] i feel you should have the right to use it wherever you wish as it is
a) of you
b) you've rightfully paid for it
 
Maesfen said:
Rightly or wrongly, I've always been of the impression that once you have bought a pro pic, that you are allowed to do with it what you will as long as you don't profit from it. Any I might save from a website for my own reference library or to forward on to friends, have the watermarks and trademarks of the photographers all over them so that is bringing attention to their work is it not and getting it out to a wider public?

I do like SC's suggestion though.
Click to expand...

Technically you're only allowed to do whatever the photographer licenses you to do with it at the time of sale. If it's one of mine then yes, I don't mind what you do with it as

1. you've paid me what we presumably both believed was a fair price and
2. it's too much effort for me to even begin to try to police what you're doing with it.

The only exception is that I wouldn't like it being used in a commercial publication

The free advertising argument isn't a great one to be honest. If you think about it the majority of the competitors will know who the photographer is and will already know the sites to visit. The chances of selling an image of an unknown rider via facebook to a picture editor are remote to say the least ;) It may happen occasionally but not enough to be considered a worthwhile form of advertising.
 
I think there are two separate issues here:

1. People who don't buy any photos from the pro photographer but just nick the watermarked images from the website to put on their Facebook page.

and

2. People who actually buy a pro photo and then either take the watermarked image off the website or scan the photo and load it on their Facebook page.

Whilst both are breaches of copyright, I suspect the photographers are much more concerned about the first category and these are the ones that they are targetting.
 
George I like your train of thought, very pragmatic and one that chimes with my own experience.

There are 2 separate issues as has been identified. The first is blatant theft and p*** taking. Serial offenders are very persistent in their habits.

The second is more thorny. Some of the people I approach on FB regarding the mass display of watermarked images, are in fact past and present customers of mine. This does not give them the right however to print screen a watermarked image and re-distribute it as they feel fit. Those customers I am trying to work with and put products in place that will meet both needs. But more specifically, I then see these watermarked images being used for advertising, whether it be on commercial sites such as H&H, Horsemart etc. There is a misconception that FB is just a social networking site. To me it is more and more being used as a business tool and frankly I see little difference between a dealer web page using a watermarked image to sell a horse or the same dealers FB page using the same image to sell the same horse.
 
Why not just get a printer and sell only hard copies at the event itself ? Surely that way you always get the money up front ?

You never know, you might even raise enough for a glamourous assistant who can mop your sweating brow when it all gets too much for you ;0)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top