Unauthorised usage of copyrighted images in for sale adverts

S

spidge

Well-Known Member
Joined
21 October 2009
Messages
225
Visit site
I don't know how many equestrian photographers we have on here but I would be interested to get some thoughts. I am happy to post my site address on here but I think even dear old Clousseau could work it out wthout help.

Check this out:

http://www.horsemart.co.uk/advert/13_yrs_1_mth_17_0_hh_chestnut_warmblood_kent/99811

One of my staff has been looking for a horse for a bit whilst her insurance claim drags on ( horse and rider injured by a careless motorist) and alerted me to the fact that images shoplifted from my web site frequently appear on for sale adverts in the south east region. Well I spent an hour this morning trawling through the south east region and discovered roughly 30 adverts using (paid for) images but more alarmingly 3 that had shoplifted images from my web site for use in their for sale adverts. Combined with another paper advert at a show center I attended at the weekend that's 4 in a week that I have come across.

I have become convinced this is a form of shoplifting for want of a better word. My new policy on this is to email the advertiser giving them 24 hours to purchase or remove the images, if no response then I will email the website owner to get the images removed from the advert. Zero tolerance! Added to that I will email any other photographers whose work I come across with the same example of shoplifted images to at least alert them to the issue. I felt if we all did this then word would get out to the equestrian world that this is unacceptable and wrong. Re-education of the horsey world may take a while but we have to start somewhere. We all know times are hard, I meet hundreds of riders, trainers, owners, venue owners and photographers etc every week, very few are immune to the current prolonged downturn.

Any thoughts?
 
I think the advertising tool should take some responsibility too! They should not permit watermarked photographs to be used for adverts without strict permission from the photographer in question.
 
Yes! It irritates the heck out of me. But how do you feel about all the shoplifted images on facebook for example?

How do you feel if the customer has bought a printed copy? Do you include the electronic rights with the sale? There are often scanned photos put up as well.
 
Why don't you offer a copyright free digital version? You can buy a jpg off your site, but it says nothing about copyright, and on the thumbnail pages I couldn't see anything which said 'if you want to use it in an ad you need to do X' - lots of the other photographers do have this facility.

Also, how are they lifting them from your site?
 
It's annoying but unless you want to follow up with solicitors letters etc there's not a lot you can do! I watermark my thumbnails and full size images, right click protection on the full size images (not fullproof I know but it deters most). Make them low res so they can't do a lot with them if they do mange to download them and I have copyright info embedded in the EXIF data. I send copyright info out with all orders and it's typed on CD copies etc. So I do as much as I can but accept there are some people that don't care and there a some that don't actually realise what they are doing infringes copyright law!
 
I think the main problem is that a lot of people do not realise that even though they have purchased a printed copy of the photo that does not entitle them to reproduce the photo without express permission as they are buying the print and not the image rights.

I have noticed a lot more photographers are becoming wise to this now and have lots of notices and disclaimers about the use of their photos, although I must say the majority who put a long page worth of small text which you have to 'agree' to are actually not helping themselves as there is too much info.

I myself am an amateur photographer but some of my photos are very respectable especially compared to some of the so called pro photographers about, and I have had copyright issues even though I don't sell my photos. My issue was with other people passing off my photos as their own, in that case once the web site admin was notified they were removed immediately thankfully and the user warned about their conduct!

The easiest way to stop people 'shoplifting' or saving the copyrighted samples on your website is firstly to cover the image with 'copyright' and secondly to enable no right click. There are ways round this but only the tech savy will know and in my opinion they are less likely to be copying the images anyway.

In terms of letting people know they cannot use your images in adverts without permission what about a sticker to put on the back stating as such?
 
On the basis that you are unlikely to "re-use" images of random horses and riders at competitions why not offer through your website the opportunity to buy copyright? Makes you extra money and lets people use the images. Might even get you more work if people know that they can use the images.

You could charge say £20 for a digital copy of the image with watermark removed and copyright not retained so that the purchaser can do with it as they please.

At the end of they day while you can get these images removed from websites doing so doesn't actually help your business, in fact if anything it will hinder it as people who have their photo removed will most likely not want to use you (I know you are in the right but they will feel narked) but if you tell them that they need to buy copyright to reproduce the image and then get money for it your business improves as it takes more money and may even sell more images.

Food for thought???

I should add I'm not a photographer, but have looked into copyright etc for my husband and his artwork, he has problems with people lifting images from his website too. Sadly even fellow creatives.
 
There are some valid points in all the posts so far. Covering them all briefly, my image galleries do contain right click protection for what it's worth, this does nothing to control screen prints or screen grabbing utilities. I do offer jpegs for sale both on site and online so am happy to offer the customer the format of their choice, either print or digital.

I do need to make my copyright T&C's more explicit and will do so. Effectively when any photographer sells a print or jpeg he has pretty much lost control over the future usage of that image.

I am equestrian photographer, I am not deluded into thinking that every image I take is worth £££. Most images have a shelf life and a notional value.
 
Here's my take on it:

I used to get annoyed about this too, but decided rather than get upset about it to use it to my advantage.

Nomatter how much you watermark the images, people will still download, screengrab etc. I even saw someone who couldn't screen grab and so took a picture of the screen with a mobile phone and posted that picture. (amazing the lengths some will go to)

I decided that some people will never buy the images and so I'd rather use them as a free marketing tool. If someone asks me I now hand out (yes, for free) a small digital image (400pix) with some writing along the bottom that has my website address. These people then post it on places like H&H forums, facebook etc. and it's amazing the amount of sales it's attracted and now my website address is getting plastered all over the place for nothing.

The people who will buy prints, will always buy prints, but the free digi images have generated SOOOOOOOO much more sales.

Don't try and fight with people over it because you'll never win. Try to embrace it.
 
Lets get everyone down to earth here

"No right click" does not work! For example no matter how well you've built your site and layered a blank over the top of the image etc - In firefox I just go tools web developer > display image paths.

Now I understand that this is your bread and butter, but I also think that photographers ought to consider a reduced price tag for jpg of lower quality. I know many charge £25 for a 300 DPI image, which is crazy, considering you can buy a print at say £15 and scan and get a better DPI image!

Now I am not sayings it right to steal, its not. As a website owner our products have been used in magazines and various places on the internet without our permission (even Sustainable Dressage didn't bother replying when I pointed out they had half inched one of my images!)

However I think you'd be better off offering a lower quality jpg for £5 then having it stolen from your website IMHO
 
CotswoldSJ said:
However I think you'd be better off offering a lower quality jpg for £5 then having it stolen from your website IMHO
Click to expand...

It's something I'm looking into at the moment myself.

a 72dpi 800x600 image is more than enough for most people and unless you are trying to print it 2" - 3" big then the quality is not really going to be good enough for print.

It's a whole new market and if you price it sensibly then you are inviting a much younger audience who don't stick photos on their walls anymore. Facebook is now their bedroom wall.
 
Mr Figjam, I know that there are literally thousands of my shoplifted images on Facebook, all advertising my business. That "advertising" does not pay the mortgage each month. Yes it helps build brand recognition and awareness of my business as a photographer. But in my opinion the seminal point is that it removes both the impulse and necessity of buying the picture. Why pester your parents to buy the print when you can screen grab it to put on Facebook? Why bother to purchase a picture to use in a for sale advert when you can screen grab it?

Cotswold SJ, interesting you mention £5 for a lower res image. My standard price for a 6x9 is £10 plus an additional £5 for a medium res jpeg with explicit consent to use for advertising,Facebook etc.
 
I am local, attend events you do as well as ones covered by other photographers. I personally have never stolen a photo have spent my money buying them. However would say am more likely to buy when I go to other events as I can get an A4 size print for £10 which to me is better value for money.

I do diagree with stealing for adverts etc, but think the companies should be more careful what they allow. Also I do admit to having one photo on my facebook with a watermark but I did spend a fortune on photos and tbh dont think its a huge problem!
 
Last edited:
CotswoldSJ said:
Lets get everyone down to earth here

"No right click" does not work! For example no matter how well you've built your site and layered a blank over the top of the image etc - In firefox I just go tools web developer > display image paths.

Now I understand that this is your bread and butter, but I also think that photographers ought to consider a reduced price tag for jpg of lower quality. I know many charge £25 for a 300 DPI image, which is crazy, considering you can buy a print at say £15 and scan and get a better DPI image!

Now I am not sayings it right to steal, its not. As a website owner our products have been used in magazines and various places on the internet without our permission (even Sustainable Dressage didn't bother replying when I pointed out they had half inched one of my images!)

However I think you'd be better off offering a lower quality jpg for £5 then having it stolen from your website IMHO
Click to expand...


The thing is though that you have to be able to make a living and turn a profit. Photographers living is the images they sell. Yours is the tack you sell so the theft of images from your website is not comparable. I'm sure if someone pocketed a bit you were selling at a show you'd be livid and you'd be even more livid if people came on here and said that it only got stolen because you were charging too much and if you'd halved the price it wouldn't have happened.

I'm sure you price your goods by taking into account production costs plus overheads of the business and that is what photographers have to do. I suspect that they may struggle to cover their overheads if they just sold images at £5 for a low res jpg all the time.

Further the issue of copyright isn't just about making money for a photographer, it is also about his professional image.

My husband is always torn about the resolution of images on the website. On the one hand he doesn't want people to steal them (and these are marketable images for which the copyright could be sold or licenced if he wished) but on the other hand if the images are grainy or poor quality people cannot appreciate his work properly and it reflects badly on him. He wouldn't want to sell a low resolution image with his name and reputation attached, because if someone then does reproduce it at a larger size the impression given (particularly to those who don't understand these things) is that his images are rubbish because they are grainy and out of focus.

We all want pro photographers to be able to attend events and we want the opportunity to buy these photos, but if they can't make a living because people aren't prepared to buy the images they will stop turning up.
 
Hey JessPickle, bless your heart for buying my photos. Interesting I think I know where and who you are referring to :-)

I appreciate what you saying regarding size and perceived value for money. You are comparing 2 different printing technologies, inkjet as opposed to dye sublimation. It is the general view within the event photo industry that the dye sub printers are the superior product. However each photographer has to choose the product and technology that suits their own business. I would not wish to pass comment on another company's work.

We get frequent compliments on the quality of our printed images that I am convinced I made the right choice for my business.

Food for thought though, thank you.
 
see your prices are in my mind fairly reasonable. I very rarely buy photos because they are often too expensive for not great shots (up to £20!!!) and I have no rights to upload to show them off on here for that money (although on rare occasion I buy one I do ask permission to post online and most say yes).

Also I have a decent DSLR which I can hand to any friend to take pics of me of and get some very good shots back thanks to the joy of auto settings for free! Infact several of the photos my OH has taken, friends/family have thought were taken by a pro and he knows nothing about photography, he just naturally has a good eye for taking a photo which is rather useful even though he doesn't like horses! ;) :p

BUT If a decent sized (aka 800x600) image was available for a £5ish and say 5for £20 with permission to use for ads/facebook etc I would almost certainly buy them so may be worth a thought. Especially as photoshop removes the majority of the work by automating the reducing process for you and then you only need email them out!
 
Katt said:
The thing is though that you have to be able to make a living and turn a profit. Photographers living is the images they sell. Yours is the tack you sell so the theft of images from your website is not comparable.
Click to expand...

It still takes us a long time and expensive cameras to get good images, so even though we don't sell them we are quite peeved when they are pinched and livid when they are pinched by someone competing and selling the same product!

Anywho - to your point about not making money - I would view the small jpg sales as an affinity product to the standard prints. I don't think they would cannibalise your existing sales, I think they would an an extra income flow.

Being in business means reacting to the market, and the market has gone social site mad. So why not sell to the kids on facebook who want to pay you one the web and have it delivered on the web (joy - no contact with customers!).

At shows you still get people who buy, I bought a nice pic at an event at the weekend had it printed there an then, impluse buy. Post event I am more likely to buy jpgs, but cannot quite see why they are more expensive than normal prints - no ink, paper and postage.
 
Santa145 I might try it for one event, ditch all the print prices and sizes on the gallery and just offer low res images via email.

It would be an interesting exercise.

I have just printed a 6x9 picture from a very low re 45kb image and the clarity is surprisingly good. Certainly not something I would be happy selling for £10 but I can see that some people would find it acceptable. Didn't recognise it without the watermark!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top