Naming and shaming Facebook shoplifters- Reposted with mods

TGM said:
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.
Click to expand...

I fall into the second category - I had no idea I was doing anything wrong when I posted a photo (on a thread on March) which I had bought - one of three, I might add, at a cost of £30+.
Yesterday I received a PM from someone asking where the photo was taken, and I replied it was at xxx at it lives on my desk at work because I love it so much.
Turns out it was the photographer in question - in a roundabout way, accusing me of "stealing their image" :( Well, in so many words.

TBH - if this is how paying customers are treated, (I regularly spend £30+ at a show on photos) soon there won't be any customers. I cannot remove the photo from the original thread as this Forum doesn't allow post editing from so long ago.

I will not be buying any more pro photos as 50% of the point of me buying them, is to share them with my friends - online or not.

Tis very sad :(
 
jnb said:
TBH - if this is how paying customers are treated, (I regularly spend £30+ at a show on photos) soon there won't be any customers. I cannot remove the photo from the original thread as this Forum doesn't allow post editing from so long ago.
Click to expand...

I do think that photographers will be shooting themselves in the foot by pursuing customers who have actually paid for the photo (even if they are technically infringing copyright). Would make much more sense to target those who are lifting the images instead of buying them.

As an aside, if you have posted images in a thread on HHO it is actually possible to remove them - you just delete the image from your Photobucket account and the thread will just be left with a little box with a red cross in place of the photo.
 
Saratoga said:
Sorry but what's the problem with scanning in a purchased image and putting online to show friends?
Click to expand...

It very much depends on the photographer. As I've already said it doesn't bother me in the slightest.

In fact, I posted this on a photography forum on this very subject. I'm only saying this in an events context though, if I was doing "fine art" stuff I'm sure I would think differently :)

I find myself in total agreement with you. My terms and conditions which I've no doubt many will find disturbing are below. However, the images generally have no intrinsic value to anyone other than the subject. There is no repeat sale value. Yes, I retain the copyright, but it's to something which is fundamentally worthless.

On realising that I've started offering small images specifically for facebook with no copyright or watermark on them at all. Why bother, my customers know who I am and will return anyway, especially now that I'm giving them something they actually want.
Click to expand...
 
jnb said:
I fall into the second category - I had no idea I was doing anything wrong when I posted a photo (on a thread on March) which I had bought - one of three, I might add, at a cost of £30+.
Yesterday I received a PM from someone asking where the photo was taken, and I replied it was at xxx at it lives on my desk at work because I love it so much.
Turns out it was the photographer in question - in a roundabout way, accusing me of "stealing their image" :( Well, in so many words.

TBH - if this is how paying customers are treated, (I regularly spend £30+ at a show on photos) soon there won't be any customers. I cannot remove the photo from the original thread as this Forum doesn't allow post editing from so long ago.

I will not be buying any more pro photos as 50% of the point of me buying them, is to share them with my friends - online or not.

Tis very sad :(
Click to expand...

jnb, I'm slightly confused here. Can I clarify that you are referring to me as the photographer that sent you a PM? If this is the case may I politely request that we discuss this offline. I have taken great pains to avoid identifying any rider and sincerely do not believe that a public forum is any place to have any necessary discussions regarding this.

My views on linking to galleries, use of the picture once you have purchased it etc are well documented on this forum. By supplying a jpeg of any resolution or print of any size the photographer has in 99.9% of cases effectively lost control of any copyright he may have in law. We know this, we accept this. 99.9% of the pictures we take have value or meaning ( ie saleability) to a very limited circle of people, sometimes for a very short space of time. We know this and we accept this.

mrusell we do print on site, but thank you for the advice anyway, I shall save that thought for a rainy day.
 
Pidge, before I ask I just want to say I always ask the togs permission to put a photo on FB or somewhere else before I do it.

I just wonder how many hours you are spending trawling the likes of FB to see if your photos are there, this seems to be something that is eating you up and you maybe need to let it go?

The comment made earlier is very true, I took a pic of my daugther doing a lovely jump at ALW earlier in the year, I stood next to the Tog when I took it and although in no way an expert I got pretty much the same shot with my camera. I bought the Togs photo whilst there and was amazed how little difference there was when I got home, although theirs offered better clarity mine was good enough with my average camera to go on the wall so I gave the Tog one to Granny.

Several of the mums in our PC say what is disappointing is the choice of fence of some Togs. I said I thought straightforward fences were chosen so most competitors get over them but they said they often do not buy as the fences chosen can lack the 'wow' factor and they have several the same at home and they can take a pic over a palisade - don't know if this is something you have considered?
 
Last edited:
spidge said:
jnb, I'm slightly confused here. Can I clarify that you are referring to me as the photographer that sent you a PM? If this is the case may I politely request that we discuss this offline. I have taken great pains to avoid identifying any rider and sincerely do not believe that a public forum is any place to have any necessary discussions regarding this.
.
Click to expand...

Spidge, JNB is referring to me. I contacted her by PM not to demand she remove or edit a photo but to point out that she should have asked permission and given a credit where it was due. I did not say she was criminal I merely pointed out copyright law. This was done via PM because like you I didn't want to identify any one person. Apologies if offering advice for future use of photos has caused offence but most people aren't aware of or don't care about copyright law.
 
How many hours, well not that many to be honest, although it may appear so. Is it eating me up, yes a bit. Will I move on, yes no doubt. Will it affect how I choose to run my business, yes. Will it alter the products I sell to my customers and how I deliver those, yes. Will I win the battle to educate those currently nicking my images without payment- probably not. Will I have succeeded in getting my point across to all of the people we photograph in a year- probably not as many of them are very supportive anyway, some will see the point if properly and patiently put across choosing to alter their behaviour and others will carry on regardless. Will it affect the availability of my my pictures in future- yes possibly. Will I end up changing jobs- unlikely. Will I choose to change the mix of events that I do- probably.

I do know that as this is something I have started, I now need to follow it through to a conclusion otherwise it will all have been bluster and needless bubble blowing. Hope that helps.
 
spidge said:
Thank you for that clarification. Another photographer with the same experiences no doubt! My OH says the PM's I have been sending are too polite.
Click to expand...
If by this comment, you mean I have taken the image without purchasing it, I did not. I bought them for £30+.
Although it would appear in your eyes, both are the same crime.

What is Facebook (Admin), and HHO (Admin)'s view, of unsolicited emails/messages such as those that are being sent out? Should they not at least, be polite?

I am being made to feel somewhat harrassed, for spending the £30 in the first place! Certainly won't bother again :( It seems I am lumped in with everyone else.
 
JNB for the record I have not PM'ed anyone on here in this regard with regard to this thread or any images of mine that they may have on their websites, facebook, twitter or anywhere else. Personally I would feel the need to be certain that I am approaching the right person, the nicknames used on here prevent that certainty in my view. Hence why I would not choose to do so.To clarify I have sent half a dozen PM's via FB messaging, not here.

If by my remark you feel that you have been associated with the shoplifters, then I wholeheartedly apologise for any misunderstanding. That was certainly not what I think I said or inferred. JNB my views on purchased pictures is well documented. Yes it is sad that you seem to have taken offence. I did not lump you in with the shoplifters.
 
Last edited:
Just as an add-on if you like and I expect there are several people in a similar situation.

For me, it would be a great shame if there weren't online galleries (when I can find them) as these are the only way I can keep tabs on the horses I have bred that are out competing and I don't get the chance to see them competing 'in real life' at all. Through them I have purchased a few of 'my children' which are a great momento to have on the wall which would be denied me if you went to only printing hard copies on the day only, plus of course you'd lose those sales as well for people that couldn't attend on the day.
 
TBH what I'm sad about is that some photos I bought due to happy memories are now soured.
If you were not saying that I'd shoplifted that is fair enough.
But I do feel that when someone has paid for photos they should be allowed to do what they want with their photo. It is an image of THEM, after all?
I don't know what the law says.

Genuine questions: Does an equine event constitute a public place ?

What happens if someone doesn't want their photo taken? I have never signed anything agreeing to my photo being taken?
 
jnb said:
What is Facebook (Admin), view, of unsolicited emails/messages such as those that are being sent out? Should they not at least, be polite?
Click to expand...

I have no idea it seems to be largely unregulated. There is a clear policy to report the use of copyrighted images which involves me supplying all relevant details to the FB authorities who then issue an Incident number. I chose to use that process this week for a rider who has not responded to a very polite email request to remove or purchase the shoplifted, screen printed copyright images that had been taken without payment from my website. These images were in use on both a commercial and personal facebook page advertising a horse for sale and an official website. Thus far no progress, save for a succession of emails back and forth between Facebook and myself, but the images are still online.
 
jnb said:
TBH what I'm sad about is that some photos I bought due to happy memories are now soured.
If you were not saying that I'd shoplifted that is fair enough.
But I do feel that when someone has paid for photos they should be allowed to do what they want with their photo. It is an image of THEM, after all?
I don't know what the law says.

Genuine questions: Does an equine event constitute a public place ?

What happens if someone doesn't want their photo taken? I have never signed anything agreeing to my photo being taken?
Click to expand...

Just to help clarify for you :) This the current way things are.

Current copyright law puts photographs in with drawings/paintings. The rights to the photograph belong to the person who created it. You wouldn't buy a print of a painting, then scan it in and put it elsewhere. It is the exact same with a photograph. You buy the right to own and display that item, not the content of that item.

It's actually the same with most things. With the way current copyright law is, it's technically illegal for you to put songs from a CD onto an ipod, as it counts as reproducing the original. Copyright law desperately needs updated to take into account current technologies.

And yes, an equestrian event does count as a public place. Though I've noticed a lot of places now asking for you to notify the secretary if you don't want photos taken.
 
JNB I am photographing a pony club tet this weekend. I quote directly from their entry form by for this event by way of illustration. I appreciate that I am no lawyer but I read this as covering and applicable to my presence, given that I am sponsoring a fence, there by official invitation and will be donating both a percentage of takings and media for use on pony club web sites etc on their galleries.

"Photographic Rights-Competitors and their guardians give permission for any
photographic and/or film or TV footage taken of persons or horse/ponies
taking part in Pony Club events to be used and published in any media
whatsoever for editorial purposes, press information or advertising by or on behalf of The Pony Club and/or official sponsors of The Pony Club."

If someone requests that their picture is not taken initially ( showjumping or dressage for eg) or removed from display or from an online gallery I am more than happy to comply with the request. It would be madness to do otherwise.
 
jnb said:
TBH what I'm sad about is that some photos I bought due to happy memories are now soured.
If you were not saying that I'd shoplifted that is fair enough.
But I do feel that when someone has paid for photos they should be allowed to do what they want with their photo. It is an image of THEM, after all?
I don't know what the law says.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the law doesn't agree with you, as described by MissSBird. You only pay for a copy of the image, not the rights to use the image as you please. Sorry if you don't like that, but that's the law. The main debate on this started around people stealing images they hadn't paid for at all, but spread out to debate the moral and legal rights of images that have been paid for.

Genuine questions: Does an equine event constitute a public place ?
Click to expand...

Since it is a place to which the public can reasonably gain access, yes.

What happens if someone doesn't want their photo taken? I have never signed anything agreeing to my photo being taken?
Click to expand...

Nothing you can do about it. You have no rights to privacy in a public place and no rights to control images taken of you in a public place. Many photographers will comply with personal requests for privacy, but this is their choice, not an obligation.
 
spidge said:
JNB I am photographing a pony club tet this weekend. I quote directly from their entry form by for this event by way of illustration. I appreciate that I am no lawyer but I read this as covering and applicable to my presence, given that I am sponsoring a fence, there by official invitation and will be donating both a percentage of takings and media for use on pony club web sites etc on their galleries.

"Photographic Rights-Competitors and their guardians give permission for any
photographic and/or film or TV footage taken of persons or horse/ponies
taking part in Pony Club events to be used and published in any media
whatsoever for editorial purposes, press information or advertising by or on behalf of The Pony Club and/or official sponsors of The Pony Club."

If someone requests that their picture is not taken initially ( showjumping or dressage for eg) or removed from display or from an online gallery I am more than happy to comply with the request. It would be madness to do otherwise.
Click to expand...

Are you at Sevenoaks/Sussex per chance?

For info as PC members we have to sign a membership form each year and on it is a section for photographic rights, at the champs in taking part you accept that your photo can/will be used for marketing and media purposes.
 
This isn't a reflection on anyone here or any particular posting but I get the impression that a lot of people on here get quite alienated by the concept of 'the law says so therefore I have the moral and legal high ground and you can basically get lost to argue different'. It would be a shame to waste that sense of sympathy of lost income for a hard-working photographer by being uber-pedantic about the legalities of copyright. I lived next to a lawyer one year who wrote his thesis on copyright law and it was basically clear as mud.

Common sense and good customer service will get you quite far in my books and I don't think I'm alone.
 
nickirhia99 said:
Are you at Sevenoaks/Sussex per chance?

For info as PC members we have to sign a membership form each year and on it is a section for photographic rights, at the champs in taking part you accept that your photo can/will be used for marketing and media purposes.
Click to expand...

Hi there, Sussex yes, Sevenoaks no. We will be covering the cross country and running disciplines on the Sunday at Borde Hill but not the swimming as regarded to be inappropriate nor the shooting for health and safety reasons.

Are you competing? Sorry I got slapped by the mod who felt I was advertising my business as I included my web site address in a previous edition of this thread. Tip toeing very carefully here!
 
kit279 said:
Common sense and good customer service will get you quite far in my books and I don't think I'm alone.
Click to expand...

No your not alone, I'm right there with you even as the photographer. This thread is about those that don't buy but prefer to screenprint FOC to harvest their images, whether for personal or commercial usage. Our customers tell us we are successful because we offer good pictures, good value and good customer service. We see thousands of our screenprinted, watermarked shoplifted images simply because our pictures are good. Why would you go to the trouble of screen printing these watermarked images , uploading to FB, twitter, personal
web sites if they were cr*p?
 
Blackwijet said:
Spidge, JNB is referring to me. I contacted her by PM not to demand she remove or edit a photo but to point out that she should have asked permission and given a credit where it was due. I did not say she was criminal I merely pointed out copyright law. This was done via PM because like you I didn't want to identify any one person. Apologies if offering advice for future use of photos has caused offence but most people aren't aware of or don't care about copyright law.
Click to expand...

See this smacks to me of greed, pure and simple.

1. Everyone who was at the event knows who the photographer is, ergo you do not need the advertising which comes from a credit, nice though it may be.

2. She has purchased the photo - if she puts it in her kitchen and invites everyone she has ever known, online or in RL, to walk through her kitchen and look at it, do you expect to get paid again or credited? Presumably not.

3. Since the rider has bought the picture, the residual value to you is effectively zero - I know I don't expect to have to buy a copy of an album for my car/house/lorry/iPod...and neither do I have to since iTunes allows me to burn up to 7 copies for my own personal use. I see pictures in the same light.

4. Regardless of the letter of the law, this is not in the spirit of the law - she has purchased the picture in order to display it. There is now a new way to display it which was not around when the law was written. What you are saying is that as (lets say) Airbus A380 planes had not been invented when the law was written, if someone wants to buy a copy of a picture and hang it in an A380 as opposed to a house, then they cannot and need to buy a special 'A380' picture even if they have already bought the picture from you to hang in their house.

This is an area in which I think photographers are shooting themselves in the foot. I can appreciate having to buy the copyright if I stand to make money from the picture, but if I just want to buy one to show friends, then really, let it go, does it matter if I 'hang' it on facebook or a forum rather than in my living room?! I know I don't have all my pro pics displayed in my (small) flat - so why can't I 'hang' them on FB instead?
 
SpottedCat said:
See this smacks to me of greed, pure and simple.

1. Everyone who was at the event knows who the photographer is, ergo you do not need the advertising which comes from a credit, nice though it may be.

2. She has purchased the photo - if she puts it in her kitchen and invites everyone she has ever known, online or in RL, to walk through her kitchen and look at it, do you expect to get paid again or credited? Presumably not.

3. Since the rider has bought the picture, the residual value to you is effectively zero - I know I don't expect to have to buy a copy of an album for my car/house/lorry/iPod...and neither do I have to since iTunes allows me to burn up to 7 copies for my own personal use. I see pictures in the same light.

4. Regardless of the letter of the law, this is not in the spirit of the law - she has purchased the picture in order to display it. There is now a new way to display it which was not around when the law was written. What you are saying is that as (lets say) Airbus A380 planes had not been invented when the law was written, if someone wants to buy a copy of a picture and hang it in an A380 as opposed to a house, then they cannot and need to buy a special 'A380' picture even if they have already bought the picture from you to hang in their house.

This is an area in which I think photographers are shooting themselves in the foot. I can appreciate having to buy the copyright if I stand to make money from the picture, but if I just want to buy one to show friends, then really, let it go, does it matter if I 'hang' it on facebook or a forum rather than in my living room?! I know I don't have all my pro pics displayed in my (small) flat - so why can't I 'hang' them on FB instead?
Click to expand...

Ditto, Spotted Cat! Pure common sense - the sooner copyright laws are updated to take into account new ways of "hanging" pictures, the better.
 
SpottedCat said:
This is an area in which I think photographers are shooting themselves in the foot. I can appreciate having to buy the copyright if I stand to make money from the picture, but if I just want to buy one to show friends, then really, let it go, does it matter if I 'hang' it on facebook or a forum rather than in my living room?! I know I don't have all my pro pics displayed in my (small) flat - so why can't I 'hang' them on FB instead?
Click to expand...

I agree. I really don't see the point in restricting a customer's choice to do what they want with an image once they've bought it.
 
spidge said:
Hi there, Sussex yes, Sevenoaks no. We will be covering the cross country and running disciplines on the Sunday at Borde Hill but not the swimming as regarded to be inappropriate nor the shooting for health and safety reasons.

Are you competing? Sorry I got slapped by the mod who felt I was advertising my business as I included my web site address in a previous edition of this thread. Tip toeing very carefully here!
Click to expand...

Hi Pidge

Yes Borde Hill on the Sunday, she will be on my mare the chessie in my siggy - big ask for them as although they show jump together they have only done a BE90 xc but her own mare is sidelined. If we see you we will come and say hi!

N:)
 
nickirhia99 said:
Hi Pidge

Yes Borde Hill on the Sunday, she will be on my mare the chessie in my siggy - big ask for them as although they show jump together they have only done a BE90 xc but her own mare is sidelined. If we see you we will come and say hi!

N:)
Click to expand...

Hope all goes well for both. Beautiful course and lovely parkland, used to walk my dogs up there often till it was closed off recently. I'll be out on the cross country somewhere, love cross country days. Hopefully the weather forecast will change again for the better as it's now saying light rain, it's been a bit changeable all week here.
 
Contrary to what may come across, I am aware of and to some extent in agreement with the 'common sense' approach being discussed, and have commented more than once that the reality of photographers' actions is usually the common sense approach anyway. However, since this is a debate it makes sense to have some facts in here. The facts are dry, counter-intuitive and pedantic, but they are the facts.

The trouble with common sense is that it is subjective and there are shades and nuances. One person's common sense says I can 'display' a picture I have bought for all to see and this should include FB (and other fora). Fine. However another person thinks that since the picture is of me, and it is there on the photographer's website unprotected, and buying it is too expensive, and the photographer must allow for some theft in his business plan, I am therefore entitled to take it. These very arguments have been used in the other thread about taking images without permission.

This is why I revert to the facts and state that assumptions about a photographer's happiness to have pictures published elsewhere should not be made. Some photographers allow it in their terms and conditions, others will allow it when asked, others don't care so long as they are making money. However some may be defensive of their lawful right to protection of their images. And let's not forget, copyright law doesn't just apply to professionals. I have had pictures ripped off my website too, and I just do it for fun. I don't ask for any money but would appreciate a credit - if I am asked that's what I will say, but please ask first.
 
How about the following as an alternativer to naming and shaming.

Clearly a few of us feel strongly about this issue. So how about any time any of us who feels strongly about the issue sees a copyrighted photo either on here, on other forums (fora??), on faceache or elsewhere; we reply to the post (or comment on the photo) to point out that the photo appears to be stolen and should therefore not be used. Maybe this will shame some people into stopping this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top