Thieving Scumbag Facebook shoplifters- Rant follows

[Santa_Claus]

but proofs (well the ones i were always sent) were miniscule , that size on a computer would be pointless as on lower res screens you would barely be able to make them out. The internet 'proofs' are far bigger and normally the same size as you would have on facebook anyway hence the appeal to take them as they are.

 

[spidge]

I have customer orders to print out, yes happy days, but I will respond. I tell you why I think it is slightly different. In the days of proofs you would have had to make contact with the photographer to request those proofs and provide your name and address. Albeit minimal there is an element of personal interaction and accountability on both sides. Fair enough if you choose not to order, then the pictures weren't good enough to persuade you to part with your cash. Or perhaps they were but you were happy with the watermarked thumbnail proofs.

You hear stories occasionally of wedding pictures proudly framed and displayed with "proof" emblazoned across the picture. They just make me giggle at the mentality.

What you have with the FB shoplifting is deliberate and persistent in some cases harvesting of images from photographers websites over the course of that riders career. But it is also a bit more than that, Facebook is being used by many professional riders and dealers to advertise, publicise and eventually sell their horses. When this is taking take place with purchased images I have no issue. It is when I see shoplifted watermarked images being blatantly used for advertising that my hackles are raised.

Does that go some way towards answering the question you never asked?

 

[Saratoga]

In the days of proofs you would have had to make contact with the photographer to request those proofs and provide your name and address. Albeit minimal there is an element of personal interaction and accountability on both sides. Fair enough if you choose not to order, then the pictures weren't good enough to persuade you to part with your cash. Or perhaps they were but you were happy with the watermarked thumbnail proofs.

I didn't ever contact the photographer to receive proofs, i assume they got my details from the secretary with my number, and sent the proofs on through the post.

And they were usually 5x7, with a watermark across them.

 

[ch70]

Wow, this thread is still going, I really thought it had died a death a while ago!

There are a few comments I would like to add regarding the recent additions to this thread (last 2 or 3 pages).

There are a number of things to remember when talking about "proofs". The images are still copyrighted. The proofs are of course created to allow the buyer to "window shop" the goods before buying. They are not meant to be a free gift! In reality however, we often let the "paying" customers take the paper proofs we use at the shows at the end of the day if they want them.

I agree with Spidge that normally the proofs would be sent at the request of the customer and not unsolicited by the photographer but I can't speak for everyone! I mean how would I know who to send which proofs to? I certainly wouldn't have posted 60 pages of proofs to every rider at a show (assuming I was some how provided those addresess) for financial reasons if nothing else.

Yes, in times past you would end up keeping the proofs you were sent. In most cases these were often printed on low grade paper with low quality non fade resistant inks and not expected to last very long. And yes people would stick them on their walls, fridge etc... or show their friends and family. But there is a distinct difference between sticking an image on your wall for your own consumption or taking it around Nan's to show her over tea and crumpets and publishing an image on a website with potentially 100's or 1000's of viewers or worse still, using that image to advertise the sale of a horse which I have also seen happen.

Now the argument that the person who stole the images probably wouldn't buy them anyway and therefore this is not a loss of earnings does not hold water I'm afraid, legally or morally. If that person feels that those images are good enough to copy and re-use then they should be paying for those images.

Whether it is "realistic" to expect people to obey the law is also not the issue. People are not doing so and as such should be made aware of the consequences. You will never stop everyone from doing this, not until there is a technological approach that can be taken, which may or may not ever come into being. However we should take necessary actions to minimise the occurence of image theft where possible.

The way I see it is that there are a number of types of people doing this:

1. I honestly believe that there are people out there who do not know that what they are doing is against the law. Those people just need to be made aware of the legal aspects of their actions and be given a choice of removing or buying those images.
   
2. I also believe that there are people out there who "claim" that they didn't know they were doing anything wrong but in fact know very well that they were. Most of the time these people are happy to comply and remove the images in question or pay a fee for them.
   
3. And finally there are those people who know they are doing something illegal, don't care and will continue doing so in the future. These persistant offenders are the ones that

Each photographer has to make a decision as to what action to take based on the possible impact this has had to their business due to theft of their images. But in any case the actions will be broadly the same:

1. Contact the person and make them aware of the legality of their actions
2. Provide them with a selection of options to remedy the situation, i.e. remove image or purchase
3. Make the person aware of the consequences of not taking any action, i.e. court action

It had occured to me that maybe we need a standard approach to tackle this. Maybe we need an Equestrian Photographers Association! It's possible we could setup standard approaches to all sorts i.e.

1. A standard copyright message we all use on our websites
2. A standard approach to copyrighting images
3. A standard set of steps to take when image theft has been identfified
4. A "Say No To Image Theft" logo and website page that we could put on the bottom of all our invoices/emails/webpages?

In other words a standard message and approach that both the photographers and customers are aware of. That way no matter what show people were at and who was taking the photos, the rules are the same, the message is the same. OK, these are just ideas and it would take a lot of effort, discussions and buy in to make something like this happen and work.

Regarding customer research, we do informal surveys at shows, generally to gauge what people are interested in. I have considered putting together an online poll to get some hard and fast statistics across a bigger audience and maybe this would allow photographers in general to tune their offerings to be more in-line with what the customers want, who knows.

Yes, this thread has been a worthwhile excercise in raising awareness of this issue. If nothing else people may realise the impact of their actions, and understand that by doing this they are breaking the law and in a court wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Paying £3 for an image is a damn site cheaper than paying court fees and compensation for loss of earnings!

And finally, FYI, this site (http://www.photographywebsite.co.uk/copyright-in-photography-c494.html) provides a nice "summary" of the legal aspect of image copyright. It's worth a read.

 

[Honey08]

Forgive me, I haven't read through all these posts, but wanted to say that its a shame that H&H can't post a reminder thread at the top of the competition riders page reminding people to not use proofs in their posts - there are so many threads on here with people putting up pictures of themselves at competitions that still have the photographer's label on. Its not fair! Have any photographers complained to the forum about this?

 

[Serenity087]

Yes, photographers have complained, and I got into big trouble for teaching forum members how to 'steal' proofs.

It's probably the biggest online debate going - does copyright stand on the internet.

I'm of the opinion it doesn't. Anything submitted to the realm of the internet belongs to the internet. Did you know everything we post on this forum belongs to IPC Media? Thats why they delete dodgey posts and ban dodgey users - not to keep the forum harmoneous, but because they own what we write. And as such, they have the right to republish anything we post on here without crediting us.

Now the reason IPC banned posting proffessional photos is cos they can't own something that is already owned. I can show you on my facebook page, but I can't show you through the forum.
But I can't even do that... because Facebook own my Facebook page...

End of the day, if you find people are using online images, go back to the days of the tacky trade stand at shows. Because no matter what you do, people are going to 'steal' copyright photographs.

Nothing to do with people wanting things for nothing, or any bad attitude, it's just the way of the internet. Who owns what?

 

[OneInAMillion]

How about charging for the right to see the photos? Charge £10 for their album to be unlocked, redeemable on purchase of photographs? At least then if theft takes place you are earning something out of it? You cannot be any worse off than you are now.

I think if you do that people wont even bother looking at the pictures. :/

 

[cobden99]

Phew, just got to the end of this thread - really interesting told me stuff I didnt know !
Nice to hear some reasoned debate as well without it degenerating into a slanging match.

 

[PapaFrita]

If a famous artist painted your portrait it wouldn't belong to you ever, you are the subject yes but that gives you no right to the painting.

Well, that's not quite the case. If it were, then no one would be able to sell on paintings, which obviously they do, often for significant profit. I'm not famous, but as far as I'm concerned, once a drawing has been paid for (just the once) the owner is free to do what they like with it, including scanning, posting on FB, etc, etc. It is THEIRS, and whilst I reserve the right to reproduce my drawings and paintings on my website, if the owner wanted me to take it down, then I would.

 

[Santa_Claus]

Well, that's not quite the case. If it were, then no one would be able to sell on paintings, which obviously they do, often for significant profit. I'm not famous, but as far as I'm concerned, once a drawing has been paid for (just the once) the owner is free to do what they like with it, including scanning, posting on FB, etc, etc. It is THEIRS, and whilst I reserve the right to reproduce my drawings and paintings on my website, if the owner wanted me to take it down, then I would.

PF not quite what I meant

What I meant was if a painter painted a picture, say I randomly took a photo of you riding PF and painted a picture with you as the subject not as a commission but just because I thought you and PF made a great composition, you then have no rights to that painting even though you are the main subject. Yes if you brought it then the rights would pass to you (and I equally also retain right to reproduce etc normally when I sell any of mine), but unless you buy it even as the subject you have no rights to that painting.

Does that make it any clearer?

 

[PapaFrita]

Ohh, OK, I getcha. Actually, I HAVE painted famous polo players (from my own photos, obviously) and then sold the paintings to a 3rd party without a second thought. Rather good likeness as well Still, once paid for, I don't consider it mine any more.

 

[Jul]

At a recent event the Photographer took a couple of nice shots of us which I saw on their website. Not fantastic and £10 a go for a hard copy, so not a 'must buy and put on the wall' but nice and I would have liked to have them to keep for 'posterity'.

So I emailed them to basically say the above and could they do a couple of (low res) file copies for me at a reduced rate. The answer was no, that in fact due to extra work and copyright issues a file copy would be an extra £5. Given that I *could* if I wanted to, shoplift them from his website (just to keep on my own PC for myself rather than putting on FB), what would YOU do?

 

[ch70]

It's probably the biggest online debate going - does copyright stand on the internet.

I'm of the opinion it doesn't. Anything submitted to the realm of the internet belongs to the internet. Did you know everything we post on this forum belongs to IPC Media? Thats why they delete dodgey posts and ban dodgey users - not to keep the forum harmoneous, but because they own what we write. And as such, they have the right to republish anything we post on here without crediting us.

Although I personally value hearing other peoples thoughts on this subject, from both camps, it does seem that people are jumping in this discussion having not read all the previous posts (although I appreciate in this thread there are many) and are therefore missing some of the facts. You may well be "of the opinion" that anything on the internet is there for grabbing, however in the eyes of the law your "opinion" means absolutely nothing. Copyright of media stands whether that be digital, print, cd, dvd, online, offline etc... And is one of the laws that does cross regional and country boundries. If you were to read the link I posted a page or so back there is a very good summary of how the "law" sees it.

Secondly, the Internet does not own anything! There is no such thing as "the realm of the Internet" although the term realm is used in web security. Infact the internet is not actually a single thing at all but an enormous collection of inter-connected computer networks, hence the name "InterNet" was derived. These are run by all sorts of organisations including the ISP you use to access the Internet, universities, governments and businesses. No single company owns the internet although there are organisations that oversee the general health of it and ensure that routing "traffic" from one place to another works. You can think of the internet as a complex road network where pieces of information are being driven around from a starting place, i.e. this website, to a final destination, i.e. your web browser on your computer.this is why it is sometimes referred to as the "information super highway". The world wide web, which we are using to read and comment here, is just one of many systems that run over the internet.

Unfortunately this highlights another area of lack of understanding of the general public as a whole. A large proportion of regular Internet users have no idea what it is that they are using! I've worked in IT for over 21 years, more than 17 years of which has been designing and building systems that run over the Internet, and I see this all the time. People turn on the computer, which they don't understand, open a web browser, which they don't understand and then surf the web reading what quite often is a lot of incorrect information that has been posted online by other people who don't understand what they are writing about! The internet has provided the ultimate tool to play chinese whispers. How many times have you heard, "Oh I was reading on this website the other day that.. bla bla bla, so that must be true then".

Lastly, regarding your statement about IPC ownership of information contained on their site. This would be due to the terms and conditions that you agreed to when signing up to the site. You agreed to turn over ownership of information for re-use by them by agreeing to clause 5 of their terms and conditions, this was a "choice" that you made, assuming you read the T&C's before agreeing that is as I know many don't bother and just click accept without actually knowing what they have just accepted!

At a recent event the Photographer took a couple of nice shots of us which I saw on their website. Not fantastic and £10 a go for a hard copy, so not a 'must buy and put on the wall' but nice and I would have liked to have them to keep for 'posterity'.

So I emailed them to basically say the above and could they do a couple of (low res) file copies for me at a reduced rate. The answer was no, that in fact due to extra work and copyright issues a file copy would be an extra £5. Given that I *could* if I wanted to, shoplift them from his website (just to keep on my own PC for myself rather than putting on FB), what would YOU do?

I understand what you are saying, not every photo is going to be great. Sometimes the photographer makes a mistake, sometimes the rider or horse makes an error, sometimes external factors such as weather can have an impact. Now you did the right thing by approaching the photographer and asking them to consider a deal. Now each photographer is going to respond to that request differently and I can't comment on what their replies would be but in this case they had decided that they were happy to do the sale at the going rate (infact that's cheaper than the going rate for a digital image). The cost of a digital image will always be higher than a print due to the ability to re-use, copy and re-distribute that file as many times as you like.

However you made the choice not to buy that image as you felt it was not worth having. Now you have decided that although they are not great photos for whatever reason, actually you would like a copy to keep for "posterity" and since the photographer won't sell at a price you like you are bascially asking for people to give their blessing for you to steal images from a hard working photographers website because you feel that paying the going rate for an image is more than you want to pay? Doesn't really sound good does it? I mean would you shoplift from a corner shop if you needed a bag of sugar they only had low quality own brand sugar and you felt their prices were too high? Why not? That's right, it's wrong.

I would suggest you contact the photographer again, tell them that you don't want prints, you just want the images to keep for your records and you are willing to pay say £15 for the two images, i.e £7.50 each so they make a sale and highlight to them that otherwise they will make no sale. If they still say no, which they are quite at liberty to do, then unfortunately you have no further options and would not be able to get copies of those images. Even if they say yes you must be aware that unless they say otherwise you only have permission to use the image for personal use and can not publish that image in any public domain. They still own copyright of the original image.

I'm not standing on some moral high ground, although I do believe if we give the impression that breaking the law is somehow OK to our children then eventually nothing will be sacred anymore. I do however want to make sure people get the cold hard facts.

The bottom line, whether individuals agree or like this is that copying a copyrighted image, which all images are unless explicitly stated otherwise, without permission is breaking the law, end of story, no arguements.

(Apologies if there are grammer or spelling mistakes, I've spent 7 hours in a field today running around taking photos of a cross country event and I'm rather tired!)

 

[Kat]

PF not quite what I meant

What I meant was if a painter painted a picture, say I randomly took a photo of you riding PF and painted a picture with you as the subject not as a commission but just because I thought you and PF made a great composition, you then have no rights to that painting even though you are the main subject. Yes if you brought it then the rights would pass to you (and I equally also retain right to reproduce etc normally when I sell any of mine), but unless you buy it even as the subject you have no rights to that painting.

Does that make it any clearer?

Still not quite right!

An artist normally retains copyright to an image even once sold.

Any resales are liable to pay royalties, and the artist has the right to reproduce or use the image even once the original has sold.

The expections being where the artist has entered a specific contract dealing with the rights to an image such as a publishing contract or licenising contract. But these do not follow the original image.

For example, if my husband does a drawing of WFP and Tamarrillo, my husband owns the rights to it, WFP has no say over what happens to it. So my husband could sell the original image to Joe Bloggs who sees it at an exhibition. But my husband still owns copyright, so he may then enter a contract with a publisher such as washington green or sally mitchell fine art to produce x number of prints for which he will be paid a fixed fee or percentage. He doesn't need the permission of either WFP or Joe Bloggs and neither do they have any say in whether the image can be reproduced or how it is reproduced, maybe as prints or on mugs or tea towels or whatever. They also are not entitled to any of the proceeds.

Then if Joe Bloggs sells that original through a dealer or auction house, my husband gets a percentage of the resale price back as royalties as the creator.

 

[figbat]

I'm of the opinion it doesn't. Anything submitted to the realm of the internet belongs to the internet.

What a load of .... well, nonsense. "The Internet" doesn't "own" anything. The internet is just another communications and distribution medium. Just as you aren't allowed to copy and publish someone else's pictures in newspapers, magazine, books or leaflets without their permission, so you aren't with the internet.

Did you know everything we post on this forum belongs to IPC Media? Thats why they delete dodgey posts and ban dodgey users - not to keep the forum harmoneous, but because they own what we write. And as such, they have the right to republish anything we post on here without crediting us.

Yes, I knew that. These are the terms & conditions we all agree to when we sign up.

Now the reason IPC banned posting proffessional photos is cos they can't own something that is already owned.

IPC Media didn't ban this practice, the law did. IPC Media just reiterated and reminded its users of the law. If you, a user, infringe the law using their media, there is a chance they could be liable as well as you - they don't want that and nor should you.

I can show you on my facebook page, but I can't show you through the forum.
But I can't even do that... because Facebook own my Facebook page...

Facebook's stand on intellectual property and copyright infringement. You agree to Facebook's T&Cs when you sign up, so you can't just use them as a 'kitchen wall' for private viewing. You don't agree or don't like it? Don't sign up. Or don't be surprised if Facebook ask you to take down any infringing images or shut you down for non-compliance.

End of the day, if you find people are using online images, go back to the days of the tacky trade stand at shows. Because no matter what you do, people are going to 'steal' copyright photographs.

People also steal cars, and horses. I guess if that happens to you you'll just shrug your shoulders and say "well, it was bound to happen, never mind"? You must shoplift too, right?