View Full Version : photo-stealing companies - gcode
Voodoo_Man
02-10-15, 10:00
Posted this on my blog and figured I should make a thread so it can be more public. If you are thinking about spending your $$ anywhere, knowing the ethics that business is important.
http://i.imgur.com/hirbBQc.jpg
A few nights ago the above image was used by the company that makes the incog holster without my permission. They paid daily_badass - a popular instagram feed - to post it so that they can get followers on their instagram page. This is pathetic and sad. I confronted the company on their instagram page as did others and they deleted the post completely and did not respond at all. They were also confronted on the above linked instagram feed and I was given credit for the photo, but only by the instagram feed owner, NOT by the company that falsely used my image as their own. If you know of any company who does this, you should go out of your way to call them out on their bullshit and make sure others know. This is plagiarism and exactly like if I were walk into their shop and take one of their products, posting it everywhere saying it was my own and taking credit for everything that had to do with it. Funny enough the image above is from my review of the Incog Holster and how bad my experience with it was. If you have not read the review (http://vdmsr.blogspot.com/2014/02/g-code-haley-strategic-incog-iwb.html), do it, you will see how this holster is not for you.
http://instagram.com/p/y26X9QShIt/
Why do I get the feeling that if they would have just asked you would have said yes?
Sent from my SM-G900T using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2
Voodoo_Man
02-10-15, 10:34
Why do I get the feeling that if they would have just asked you would have said yes?
Sent from my SM-G900T using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2
But did they?
No.
It is no different than anyone taking their holsters and advertising them as their own design.
Any watermarks in the photo? If not how does claim to be the originator?
Serious question.
Voodoo_Man
02-10-15, 10:47
Any watermarks in the photo? If not how does claim to be the originator?
Serious question.
That picture was posted before I put watermarks on my images.
You can see the review link I posted, that picture is there and the review is dated 2/2014.
If absolutely necessary I can post the exif and the original image.
Just a thought - why would I start a thread pointing this out if it wasn't my image they stole?
That picture was posted before I put watermarks on my images.
You can see the review link I posted, that picture is there and the review is dated 2/2014.
If absolutely necessary I can post the exif and the original image.
Just a thought - why would I start a thread pointing this out if it wasn't my image they stole?
I wasn't insinuating that you did steal. Obviously it's your image if you say it's your image. I was just thinking out loud for a moment.
There are billions of images on the net with no way to ascertain where they originated from directly unless one already knew. Were they in the wrong? They look to be certainly and they should have handled it differently once you confronted them about it but without watermarks on the photos what damages can you claim?
I agree, complete and utter BS!!
You need to start watermarking your pics. I recommend two, one obvious one like Sticks and a second one that would only be noticeable by you incase of any manipulation on their end and you need to prove copyright. People who don't take pictures/video im my experience are clueless about copyright.
Voodoo_Man
02-10-15, 10:59
I wasn't insinuating that you did steal. Obviously it's your image if you say it's your image. I was just thinking out loud for a moment.
There are billions of images on the net with no way to ascertain where they originated from directly unless one already knew. Were they in the wrong? They look to be certainly and they should have handled it differently once you confronted them about it but without watermarks on the photos what damages can you claim?
As I stated I posted the image on my blog, as original content.
As a photographer, the photographs I post online have inherent value, same value your image has, hence why you have to release it to those who wish to profit off of it - just like they attempted to do.
I agree, complete and utter BS!!
You need to start watermarking your pics. I recommend two, one obvious one like Sticks and a second one that would only be noticeable by you incase of any manipulation on their end and you need to prove copyright. People who don't take pictures/video im my experience are clueless about copyright.
I do put watermarks on my pictures now, this was posted before I started to.
This stuff really ticks me off. My wife is a popular artist and sends her line art to a rather large company in her industry for production and distribution. In less than 6 months after her work is released it is copied to nearly identical by many of the competitors. It's like squashing bugs, going legal would cost more than the benefits attained. These companies respond typically like, so sue me. We have stopped a few but more just pop up.
Voodoo_Man
02-10-15, 11:17
This stuff really ticks me off. My wife is a popular artist and sends her line art to a rather large company in her industry for production and distribution. In less than 6 months after her work is released it is copied to nearly identical by many of the competitors. It's like squashing bugs, going legal would cost more than the benefits attained. These companies respond typically like, so sue me. We have stopped a few but more just pop up.
Public shaming, and word of mouth in that industry is probably the best way about it (and cheapest too).
I posted this on several firearms/ccw/tactical forums because that is their customer base. I want people to search, come up with this thread or my post on my blog and see what they did and choose to purchase from a company that is more ethical and moral.
FlyingHunter
02-10-15, 11:49
Your photography is rather incredible. I've watched it over the years thru M4c and it continues to improve. Nice work. Oh, sorry about the theft. No GCodes for me.
Voodoo_Man
02-10-15, 11:54
Your photography is rather incredible. I've watched it over the years thru M4c and it continues to improve. Nice work. Oh, sorry about the theft. No GCodes for me.
I appreciate the comment.
Both Getty and Corbis hired a company to track online image theft a few years back and the percentage of images that are used without authorization is huge. I've taken companies to court for misusing my images, and won, but collecting on a judgement is just about impossible. What's even more infuriating is when foreign companies use my images without permission/payment and basically thumb their nose at requests to remove the images from their site.
Sadly, online theft is here to stay. Watermarks are very easy to remove and while it may dissuade a few thieves, I've had watermarked images simply retouched by the thieving end-user.
Sorry this happened but it's a case of "welcome to the world wide web', it's been happening to a lot of us for many many years - it definitely takes a cut out of the monetary bottom line.
About the most accurate assessment I've read of the situation is that if you don't want images stolen, do not have a single image online in any manner whatsoever. That's basically impossible for commercial photographers in the modern day but the reality is that if you post images online, anywhere, eventually they are going to be stolen and used to further someone else's purposes.
Voodoo_Man
02-10-15, 13:11
Both Getty and Corbis hired a company to track online image theft a few years back and the percentage of images that are used without authorization is huge. I've taken companies to court for misusing my images, and won, but collecting on a judgement is just about impossible. What's even more infuriating is when foreign companies use my images without permission/payment and basically thumb their nose at requests to remove the images from their site.
Sadly, online theft is here to stay. Watermarks are very easy to remove and while it may dissuade a few thieves, I've had watermarked images simply retouched by the thieving end-user.
Sorry this happened but it's a case of "welcome to the world wide web', it's been happening to a lot of us for many many years - it definitely takes a cut out of the monetary bottom line.
About the most accurate assessment I've read of the situation is that if you don't want images stolen, do not have a single image online in any manner whatsoever. That's basically impossible for commercial photographers in the modern day but the reality is that if you post images online, anywhere, eventually they are going to be stolen and used to further someone else's purposes.
Of course, and I completely understand the risks and concepts of this.
As I stated, I am merely attempting to do the only thing that can be done here, and that is publicly shame the company.
zombiescometh
02-10-15, 13:14
Maybe it wasn't all gcode it might be facebooks fault. http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/15/02/10/256b26ec14f42a6dab93a65eacea6c66.jpg
Public shaming, and word of mouth in that industry is probably the best way about it (and cheapest too).
I posted this on several firearms/ccw/tactical forums because that is their customer base. I want people to search, come up with this thread or my post on my blog and see what they did and choose to purchase from a company that is more ethical and moral.
Basically convert whatever gain they were trying to accomplish via social media and forum positive image into explanation of what happened - and they'll lose business from it.
A third party using media that was incorrectly to be assumed open license isn't as detrimental, but once approached by the concern not having an answer is frankly unacceptable, especially in an industry where good media creation with their products is critical to success. I was looking at an INCOG because of the price; no more.
Voodoo_Man
02-10-15, 13:29
Maybe it wasn't all gcode it might be facebooks fault. http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/15/02/10/256b26ec14f42a6dab93a65eacea6c66.jpg
They had that picture on their instagram account for more than a month - they deleted it when I confronted them, so this guy either re-posted it from me didn't give credit for the photo or got it from them.
Post on his FB page with a link to this thread please.
Basically convert whatever gain they were trying to accomplish via social media and forum positive image into explanation of what happened - and they'll lose business from it.
A third party using media that was incorrectly to be assumed open license isn't as detrimental, but once approached by the concern not having an answer is frankly unacceptable, especially in an industry where good media creation with their products is critical to success. I was looking at an INCOG because of the price; no more.
Exactly.
zombiescometh
02-10-15, 13:52
They had that picture on their instagram account for more than a month - they deleted it when I confronted them, so this guy either re-posted it from me didn't give credit for the photo or got it from them.
Post on his FB page with a link to this thread please.
Exactly.
Not defending them but did they delete their instagram account and make a new one because it shows 4 days in use?
as a photographer its my living :)
watermark and then copyright/register all your images you want to protect and then if it happens again record it screen grabs etc... then send them a bill :)
been knowing a few more photographers to win with companies these days but sadly the small ones its a lot tougher but I would bill them then turn it into collections and make them deal with those people
Voodoo_Man
02-10-15, 14:28
Not defending them but did they delete their instagram account and make a new one because it shows 4 days in use?
I might have gotten that mixed up then, there were a few accounts with that image, I did not get a chance to screen capture g-code's post but it was there for a while and they posted it as their own without giving credit.
If you haven't yet, in the future there are two lines you will likely hear:
A) "Oh, we are so sorry, our web guy must have done that without our knowledge"
B) "Oh, we are so sorry, our graphic designer must have done that without our knowledge"
Both excuses are complete bovine fecal matter but you can more or less count on nobody taking responsibility and owing up to stealing your image/s.
The web has made theft of content very very easy and while I empathize, I cannot think of a manner in which this will be stopped. Public 'shaming' as you call it is a start, I'm just not sure if there's really much more than can be done. Judgements are fairly easy to get, but even though the penalty for copyright infringement is very substantial, collecting on a judgement is nigh unto impossible in my experience and I've prevailed in more than one case.
Voodoo_Man
02-10-15, 15:10
If you haven't yet, in the future there are two lines you will likely hear:
A) "Oh, we are so sorry, our web guy must have done that without our knowledge"
B) "Oh, we are so sorry, our graphic designer must have done that without our knowledge"
Both excuses are complete bovine fecal matter but you can more or less count on nobody taking responsibility and owing up to stealing your image/s.
The web has made theft of content very very easy and while I empathize, I cannot think of a manner in which this will be stopped. Public 'shaming' as you call it is a start, I'm just not sure if there's really much more than can be done. Judgements are fairly easy to get, but even though the penalty for copyright infringement is very substantial, collecting on a judgement is nigh unto impossible in my experience and I've prevailed in more than one case.
I expect something like this to occur.
In this specific situation, however, they are a company in the firearms industry, which is still a fairly small industry and this type of thing has a tendency to spread fairly quickly if given the right type of attention by honest people looking to spend their money at an honest company. I am not looking to piss on anyone specifically, but what occurred is wrong and as others have stated, it is common place enough that it needs to be addressed. The easiest way for this to be brought to the limelight is through their wallets. When companies are held accountable by their customers for their immoral and unethical actions they will have to take action.
Don Robison
02-10-15, 15:34
That's a load of crap.
To the OP, to what effect did the use of the photograph have upon its value?
I sympathize with the OP as gcode is in the wrong but I'd still like someone to explain how one can claim copyright infringement over what is essentially a random photo with no registered or identifiable markings that was pulled off the interwebs?
Voodoo_Man
02-10-15, 16:24
To the OP, to what effect did the use of the photograph have upon its value?
Not really sure what you are referring to, monetary value?
I sympathize with the OP as gcode is in the wrong but I'd still like someone to explain how one can claim copyright infringement over what is essentially a random photo with no registered or identifiable markings that was pulled off the interwebs?
It may be random but since they didn't take the pic they know for a fact it's not theirs. Pretty simple.
To the OP, to what effect did the use of the photograph have upon its value?
That's 100% completely irrelevant.
What effect does stealing a brand new Porsche 911 have on the value of Porsche 911's?!
Showing monetary damage to value is not necessary to show infringement.
I sympathize with the OP as gcode is in the wrong but I'd still like someone to explain how one can claim copyright infringement over what is essentially a random photo with no registered or identifiable markings that was pulled off the interwebs?
Copyright exists from the moment the image is captured until 70 years after the authors death. There's nothing 'random' about the photo, the OP set up the photo and pressed the button, that's all that's required for copyright. No markings are required.
It may be random but since they didn't take the pic they know for a fact it's not theirs. Pretty simple.
Right but you could pull the same photo off any random flickr account that happened to be hosting it and they could all say they were the originator and because there is no identifiable copyright markings none of their claims would any less valid than another right? How is anyone (company or otherwise) suppose to validate what is essentially random?
Right but you could pull the same photo off any random flickr account that happened to be hosting it and they could all say they were the originator and because there is no identifiable copyright markings none of their claims would any less valid than another right? How is anyone (company or otherwise) suppose to validate what is essentially random?
They didn't take the picture, they don't own it.
Shall I dig through a thesaurus to word it differently? It's just not their image. It is theft.
Voodoo_Man
02-10-15, 17:35
Right but you could pull the same photo off any random flickr account that happened to be hosting it and they could all say they were the originator and because there is no identifiable copyright markings none of their claims would any less valid than another right? How is anyone (company or otherwise) suppose to validate what is essentially random?
When the owner of the original photo comes forward then it is up to him to prove it, which I did by posting a link to a review which contains the photo almost a year before gcode used it. Then I can always provide the exif, as I stated.
Eurodriver
02-10-15, 17:47
I like GCode and have several of their SOC holsters.
This type of thing, however, is something that has the potential to put me off to customers. I can handle a "Hey, we're in a pickle. We need a picture...grab that nice looking one..." mistake someone might make in a hurry once.
But to delete negative comments and not confront the issue is an entirely different matter. It's why I will never purchase anything from Griffin ever again. When you decide to enter the realm of social media, you do so knowing you will open yourself up to the positive and negative aspects. Deleting negative comments is such a chickenshit thing to do, and knowing they do that may be enough to look for another RTI compatible holster company.
Right but you could pull the same photo off any random flickr account that happened to be hosting it and they could all say they were the originator and because there is no identifiable copyright markings none of their claims would any less valid than another right? How is anyone (company or otherwise) suppose to validate what is essentially random?
The existence, of something online, does not, by virtue of it being online, make it "random".
.46caliber
02-10-15, 18:04
We deal with this all the time at my employer. We shoot our own photos of the products we sell and they get stolen often.
We collect the offending links and send them to our attorney. He sends a cease and desist. In the event of noncompliance, suit is filed and we win.
Much more difficult for an individual without the resources to cover attorney fees.
The good news is, there is an organization that helps artists of all kinds protect their work. Attorneys volunteer their time. I'll see if I can find the name of the organization for you.
If anyone is displaying your work without your permission, even if they attribute, they are in violation of your rights to your artwork.
Even if Instagram's terms of use require open license for uploaded images, if you didn't upload and the person that did does not have permission, then the image needs to be taken down.
ETA: This is why sites like FB and Instagram put in their terms of use that you agree you have rights to use an image or video before uploading and by uploading you share the rights in whatever fashion their TOU indicate.
This is all based on my limited knowledge. I'm not am attorney and I've never played one.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
It is no different than anyone taking their holsters and advertising them as their own design.
No it is not. Not even close.
If they were in the photo selling business I might see your point.
They saw a picture of their holster on the internet with no attribution, no copyright, nothing and they re-posted it. No big deal.
OMG, here is a picture of a car. No attribution, no copyright. If you resend it out on instagram do you think it is the same thing as claiming you designed this $2M 1 of 499 car?
Nuts.
http://i839.photobucket.com/albums/zz314/Umbrarian/CarsAndCoffeeDallas/DSC00737_zps7a62df2a.jpg (http://s839.photobucket.com/user/Umbrarian/media/CarsAndCoffeeDallas/DSC00737_zps7a62df2a.jpg.html)
Eurodriver
02-10-15, 18:13
OMG, here is a picture of a car. No attribution, no copyright. If you resend it out on instagram do you think it is the same thing as claiming you designed this $2M 1 of 499 car?
Nuts.
http://i839.photobucket.com/albums/zz314/Umbrarian/CarsAndCoffeeDallas/DSC00737_zps7a62df2a.jpg (http://s839.photobucket.com/user/Umbrarian/media/CarsAndCoffeeDallas/DSC00737_zps7a62df2a.jpg.html)
You're not trying to earn a profit off of that image. That's the rub.
GCode is trying to make money by using an image they stole that used Voodoo's hard work, capital, and equipment to create it.
That's 100% completely irrelevant.
What effect does stealing a brand new Porsche 911 have on the value of Porsche 911's?!
Showing monetary damage to value is not necessary to show infringement.
Actually it is. There is a four prong legal test which much be met to exclude any fair use exceptions. One of those is that there is a loss.
I'm curious if an amateur photographer, if he doesn't sell any work, could meet that prong of the legal challenge and claim an infringement.
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Also, I wonder if there could be any claim that the holster's image is intellectual property of its maker, same being for the handgun.
Actually it is. There is a four prong legal test which much be met. One of those is that
I'm curious if an amateur photographer, if he doesn't sell any work, could meet that prong of the legal challenge and claim an infringement.
Plenty of cases of them winning all the time.
I guess I expected a little better of the membership base here. Perhaps the next mag I see on the ground or table at a class without a name on it will be mine.
.46caliber
02-10-15, 18:26
Plenty of cases of them winning all the time.
I guess I expected a little better of the membership base here. Perhaps the next mag I see on the ground or table at a class without a name on it will be mine.
People would learn a lot if they took the time to read the user agreements they blindly accept. Reminds me of the South Park "Human Cent-iPad" episode.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
SpeedRacer
02-10-15, 18:36
Actually it is. There is a four prong legal test which much be met to exclude any fair use exceptions. One of those is that there is a loss.
I'm curious if an amateur photographer, if he doesn't sell any work, could meet that prong of the legal challenge and claim an infringement.
Also, I wonder if there could be any claim that the holster's image is intellectual property of its maker, same being for the handgun.
The OP runs a blog, which generates advertising revenue. The success of blogs is arguably 100% dependent on exclusive and quality content, which helps drive traffic, which increases ad revenue. A fair tradeoff would have been attribution to the OP and a link to his site, which I'd bet he would have been okay with. To simply take the image and use it without consent lowers the value of the OP's content, since people don't need to visit his site to access it.
Like others have said it happens all day every day. Easy case to win, hard to collect. I would love to see GCode skip all that drama and at least step up and send him some traffic and maybe free gear for review (that would still be a win for them).
Voodoo_Man
02-10-15, 18:37
I love how people seem to be bent on trying to change the fact they used something which is not theirs.
Its an ethical issue on that companies part, and anyone associated with them.
Plenty of cases of them winning all the time.
I guess I expected a little better of the membership base here. Perhaps the next mag I see on the ground or table at a class without a name on it will be mine.
What an amazing contribution to the conversation. Spot on amazing analogy as well.
Voodoo_Man
02-10-15, 18:38
The OP runs a blog, which generates advertising revenue. The success of blogs is arguably 100% dependent on exclusive and quality content, which helps drive traffic, which increases ad revenue. A fair tradeoff would have been attribution to the OP and a link to his site, which I'd bet he would have been okay with. To simply take the image and use it without consent lowers the value of the OP's content, since people don't need to visit his site to access it.
Like others have said it happens all day every day. Easy case to win, hard to collect. I would love to see GCode skip all that drama and at least step up and send him some traffic and maybe free gear for review (that would still be a win for them).
Logic overload here guys....lol
The OP runs a blog, which generates advertising revenue. The success of blogs is arguably 100% dependent on exclusive and quality content, which helps drive traffic, which increases ad revenue. A fair tradeoff would have been attribution to the OP and a link to his site, which I'd bet he would have been okay with. To simply take the image and use it without consent lowers the value of the OP's content, since people don't need to visit his site to access it.
Thank you for the explanation. A little more complicated than a mag lying on the ground.
.46caliber
02-10-15, 18:45
What an amazing contribution to the conversation. Spot on amazing analogy as well.
Something tells me the latter part wasn't directed as response to your post, hence the break.
Even if the amateur photographer doesn't sell rights to images, it's still his or her property and cannot be used by others without permission.
My employer doesn't sell images for profit, but wins claims because the photos belong to the company and they are used without permission by others.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
When you say they "win claims", are these actual legal filings in a court or just back and forth with an attorney?
Most get their credit and cash. A few high profile cases have had photographers winning more than a little cash.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/1-2-million-lawsuit-shouldnt-steal-photos-twitter/
Voodoo, has Gcode still not contacted you to offer you monetary compensation, or at least an apology?
I love how people seem to be bent on trying to change the fact they used something which is not theirs.
Its an ethical issue on that companies part, and anyone associated with them.
How much did Glock charge you for using their gun in your photo? How much did the holster maker charge? Or do you think you can profit off of other folks products for your commercial ventures without paying licensing fees for such use?
Serious question. I worked for a well-known tech company and to use our products in similar photo shoots you had to pay licensing fees.
Voodoo_Man
02-10-15, 19:14
Voodoo, has Gcode still not contacted you to offer you monetary compensation, or at least an apology?
After they deleted the post I commented on, on their instagram page, I did not contact them again.
They were contacted in reference to this situation by others in the industry who understand this cannot be tolerated, I was CC'd and have yet to hear back.
Voodoo_Man
02-10-15, 19:16
How much did Glock charge you for using their gun in your photo? How much did the holster maker charge? Or do you think you can profit off of other folks products for your commercial ventures without paying licensing fees for such use?
Serious question. I worked for a well-known tech company and to use our products in similar photo shoots you had to pay licensing fees.
Wow you are way out in left field.
Consumer law 101 for you.
The gun was purchased legally, therefore all rights to the image of that specific gun are those of the owner of that firearm.
The holster was purchased legally, therefore all rights to the image of that specific holster are those of the owner of that holster.
Follow the logic, it is self-explanatory.
.46caliber
02-10-15, 19:17
When you say they "win claims", are these actual legal filings in a court or just back and forth with an attorney?
That I honestly don't know. I do know that fiscal compensation is rendered.
My gut tells me it doesn't usually have to go as far as court because the offenders know they don't have a leg to stand on. They company can prove where/when images originated.
But really I don't know.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
Right but you could pull the same photo off any random flickr account that happened to be hosting it and they could all say they were the originator and because there is no identifiable copyright markings none of their claims would any less valid than another right? How is anyone (company or otherwise) suppose to validate what is essentially random?
Essentially if you're posting photos online, you should keep the full resolution unedited photo somewhere if you don't watermark it.
To a more malicious IP thief, watermarking isn't enough as you can crop or otherwise remove a small watermark without too much issue usually.
But if you need to prove you took the photo, you can take another photo in the same location (if the location is prominent in the photo and not just a white backdrop...), with the same subject (if it's a person or distinct thing, like with the same Glock which has unique wear marks), or provide the full resolution image. Because contrary to CSI, there is no "enhance" button in Photoshop and most people have 50billion megapixel cameras now days, but anything bigger than 1920x1080 is too big for mainstream Internet sharing, and usually even that's way too big. You can also post un-photoshoped images if the photo was cropped to prove it as well.
The easiest way though is if you crop and resize your photos before sharing and save the original without uploading it, which you'll probably end up doing anyway.
Voodoo_Man
02-10-15, 19:19
Essentially if you're posting photos online, you should keep the full resolution unedited photo somewhere if you don't watermark it.
To a more malicious IP thief, watermarking isn't enough as you can crop or otherwise remove a small watermark without too much issue usually.
But if you need to prove you took the photo, you can take another photo in the same location (if the location is prominent in the photo and not just a white backdrop...), with the same subject (if it's a person or distinct thing, like with the same Glock which has unique wear marks), or provide the full resolution image. Because contrary to CSI, there is no "enhance" button in Photoshop and most people have 50billion megapixel cameras now days, but anything bigger than 1920x1080 is too big for mainstream Internet sharing, and usually even that's way too big. You can also post un-photoshoped images if the photo was cropped to prove it as well.
The easiest way though is if you crop and resize your photos before sharing and save the original without uploading it, which you'll probably end up doing anyway.
I can do all of that, I keep all my originals with their exif in tact.
Wow you are way out in left field.
Consumer law 101 for you.
The gun was purchased legally, therefore all rights to the image of that specific gun are those of the owner of that firearm.
The holster was purchased legally, therefore all rights to the image of that specific holster are those of the owner of that holster.
Follow the logic, it is self-explanatory.
So you did not ask permission, and are completely ignorant of the licensing issues involved. You just decided you had a right to profit from their product because you bought one. But they do not have a right to-retweet, re-instagram, whatever an unmarked image they can reasonably believe was in the Public Domain since you chose not mark it. Gotcha.
I can do all of that, I keep all my originals with their exif in tact.
Oh I have no doubt, was just responding to jpmuscle.
So you did not ask permission, and are completely ignorant of the licensing issues involved. You just decided you had a right to profit from their product because you bought one. But they do not have a right to-retweet, re-instagram, whatever an unmarked image they can reasonably believe was in the Public Domain since you chose not mark it. Gotcha.
Not sure you understand what's going on here...
Not sure you understand what's going on here...
No he's completely lost. I don't think he understands copyright law in the slightest.
Serious question. I worked for a well-known tech company and to use our products in similar photo shoots you had to pay licensing fees.
Which tech company do you work for? Which products do you not allow people to take photos of if they own it?
.46caliber
02-10-15, 19:32
So you did not ask permission, and are completely ignorant of the licensing issues involved. You just decided you had a right to profit from their product because you bought one. But they do not have a right to-retweet, re-instagram, whatever an unmarked image they can reasonably believe was in the Public Domain since you chose not mark it. Gotcha.
What exactly is the licensing issue here?
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
For those who opined on questions, much appreciated.
Voodoo_Man
02-10-15, 19:40
So you did not ask permission, and are completely ignorant of the licensing issues involved. You just decided you had a right to profit from their product because you bought one. But they do not have a right to-retweet, re-instagram, whatever an unmarked image they can reasonably believe was in the Public Domain since you chose not mark it. Gotcha.
I have no idea what you are talking about, and I am getting the feeling you do not either.
Voodoo how was gcode to know your pic was yours and not just out floating in the public domain somewhere?
Voodoo how was gcode to know your pic was yours and not just out floating in the public domain somewhere?
The key is they knew it wasn't theirs.
Voodoo_Man
02-10-15, 19:45
The key is they knew it wasn't theirs.
Exactly.
.46caliber
02-10-15, 19:45
I think we may be confusing licensing. Licensing is when Intel creates 32 bit architecture chips and AMD creates 64 bit architecture. They pay licensing fees to each other to produce chips using the other's architecture. Or when NewEra pays the MLB to produce hats that include MLB owned logo designs.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
wildcard600
02-10-15, 19:46
Electronic Arts for instance, used to have to license the likenesses and namesakes of weapons for use in their (for profit) games. These days it does not seem to be as simple as "I own it so I can use my own images of it for profit".
YMMV
Electronic Arts for instance, used to have to license the likenesses and namesakes of weapons for use in their (for profit) games. These days it does not seem to be as simple as "I own it so I can use my own images of it for profit".
YMMV
Names are trademarked. Unless the weapon design itself was meant to be artistic rather than utilitarian, they can't copyright the look of their guns. That's why for example you could have tons of real guns in some versions of Counter-Strike, but only with the names changed. It's not like they got permission to use the exterior looks of a glock but not the name.
Voodoo how was gcode to know your pic was yours and not just out floating in the public domain somewhere?
It's possible that gcode didn't know who the pic belonged to. But unless an image is explicitly said to be in the public domain, it is by default not in the public domain. It's the responsibility of whoever is using an image they did not themselves take to either get permission of the person who took the photo or to verify that the owner has given blanket rights for anyone to use it (which is a form of permission from the person who took the photo actually).
wildcard600
02-10-15, 19:53
Names are trademarked. Unless the weapon design itself was meant to be artistic rather than utilitarian, they can't copyright the look of their guns. That's why for example you could have tons of real guns in some versions of Counter-Strike, but only with the names changed.
True, but what if you are profiting off an image of a Glock that clearly says "Glock" on it ?
Right click on the image while using Chrome to "search Google for this image" and you will see his blog referenced. It tool less than a second to return a hit showing some trace of an owner. They couldn't even have been bothered to search for the image using a short series of clicks.
True, but what if you are profiting off an image of a Glock that clearly says "Glock" on it ?
Since I'm lazy:
https://asmp.org/articles/trademark-faq.html
zombiescometh
02-10-15, 20:10
Right click on the image while using Chrome to "search Google for this image" and you will see his blog referenced. It tool less than a second to return a hit showing some trace of an owner. They couldn't even have been bothered to search for the image using a short series of clicks.
Granted they could have but I still think that they got the picture from the facebook user who put gcodes Facebook link in his description of the photo he took from voodoo. Granted they still should have credited voodoo after the fact but it seems they figured deleting it would be good enough. Who really knows though. Just my .02
wildcard600
02-10-15, 20:15
Since I'm lazy:
https://asmp.org/articles/trademark-faq.html
"The same is true for trademarked props. A still life showing writing paper and a Mont Blanc pen would probably be fine to use on a brochure for a law firm or literary agency, but seems likely to cause problems in an ad campaign for Crane stationery. If you took a photograph of a Harley-Davidson motorcycle and sold it as an uncaptioned poster, the chances are that it would be legal. If you added the Harley-Davidson Bar and Shield logo to a corner of the poster, most people looking at it would probably believe that the poster was an officially produced or licensed product of Harley-Davidson, and you would probably be liable for trademark infringement."
That link didn't really clear anything up. What I got from that link is the best bet to stay legal is to keep any trademark or copyright IP out of your commercial business.
"The same is true for trademarked props. A still life showing writing paper and a Mont Blanc pen would probably be fine to use on a brochure for a law firm or literary agency, but seems likely to cause problems in an ad campaign for Crane stationery. If you took a photograph of a Harley-Davidson motorcycle and sold it as an uncaptioned poster, the chances are that it would be legal. If you added the Harley-Davidson Bar and Shield logo to a corner of the poster, most people looking at it would probably believe that the poster was an officially produced or licensed product of Harley-Davidson, and you would probably be liable for trademark infringement."
That link didn't really clear anything up. What I got from that link is the best bet to stay legal is to keep any trademark or copyright IP out of your commercial business.
Yep. There's no hard and fast rule to cover every situation. There's a reason why real TV shows (reality, news, etc) often censor business logos and such, they just want to play it safe and completely avoid any trouble even if they may be OK to show the logos.
polydeuces
02-10-15, 22:31
Simple basic concept:
If you don't want it ripped off don't release it on-line in any shape or form. Period. Sad but true.
That and splattering your name/copyright info all over the image.
As a working pro I have learned the hard way tight control on anything digital is the ONLY way unlicensed use can be avoided - the general public has no concept or gives a rat's ass about copyright infringement - they figure if its on-line and can be copied n pasted its gtg for them.....
Oh, and screen shots, even better....
2"x2" @75 dpi is the best I'll do on anything I even slightly care about collecting on.
That's very true but in this particular community you'd hope people were better than that.
Voodoo_Man
02-10-15, 22:53
That's very true but in this particular community you'd hope people were better than that.
Well, ethics...morals...especially in a pro-2A community like ours....Should we expect people to be of the other end of the spectrum?
wildcard600
02-11-15, 07:16
That's very true but in this particular community you'd hope people were better than that.
As was pointed out, its not as cut and dry as ths statememt would make it seem.
Bullshit. Spin it all you want. It wasn't theirs to take and they knew it because they didn't take the picture.
wildcard600
02-11-15, 07:29
Bullshit. Spin it all you want. It wasn't theirs to take and they knew it because they didn't take the picture.
Thats not quite what i was getting at. Anyway have a good day.
So there are shades of theft?
Voodoo_Man
02-11-15, 07:35
What orion was getting to was that sure, you may be able to explain them using the image without asking, it may have been an accident.
All of those may and could have ideas go out the window when they delete their post and do not issue an immediate apology on the matter.
wildcard600
02-11-15, 07:59
I'll break it down for you.
Should the company in question have used a unwatermarked photo from the internet they did not have premission to use ? Probably not.
Should the OP be attempting to profit or claim financial damages for photos that display registered trademarks and logos he does not habe permission to use ? Probably not.
Have a good day gentlemen.
Probably? Are you serious? What about theft don't you get? The "it's his" part or the "not theirs" part?
Didn’t read the whole thread, but I am 99% sure Facebook states that any photo you upload to FB they can use/sell and you give up your rights to said photo. Does Instagram have something similar? I’d be surprised if they didn’t.
And, yes, I’ve had some of my photos stolen and used on webpages. I used to take a lot of pictures of cars, mostly modified cars, and saw one I can recall on a website selling an exhaust using my picture of a car with that exhaust.
It is frustrating because taking quality photographs is very time consuming: the set-up, post production, etc.
The most commonly used social media outlets respect the rights of the image owner in instances like this. Facebook takes theft seriously, apparently unlike posters in this thread.
Voodoo_Man
02-11-15, 08:12
FB and Instagram may in fact have that policy.
I never uploaded that image to either one of those sites, however.
First, I appreciate everyone in this thread keeping it mature and level headed for the most part. This industry has given photographers a chance to show their skills and aspire to the likes of Stickman, Voodoo Man, and others.
Second, I would be flattered that someone stole my work for their own company page. I get excited when a prominent company on instagram even likes one of my snaps. ;)
But I dont do this seriously. My pictures are taken when I get drunk enough to think I'm good at taking pictures with an iPhone.
For someone like Voodoo Man, who does do this seriously, it's a threat to what he does and everyone like him.
This has been a good discussion for all of you who are considering photography even as a passing hobby.
The money invested in lighting, cameras, post processing, etc. isn't cheap. All of that invested money went in to getting that exact picture. That is money that G Code didn't spend. Therefore taking that exact image and using it for their own is theft.
You can give them a pass that it was an "accident", but if it didn't come directly off their own memory card, server, etc. then they known they took it without permission.
When confronted about it, they took the thief's route and tried to hide it and make it go away. Which is the worst part.
I think because Voodoo Man still has possession of the original, some here, think nothing has been stolen.
Yeah, something like this can really be a black-eye for a company if it is not handled quickly and correctly. For the most part, regular people don't quite understand the legalities of it all, but a company like Gcode should and does know better.
wildcard600
02-11-15, 08:55
Probably? Are you serious? What about theft don't you get? The "it's his" part or the "not theirs" part?
The companies logo or glocks is not "his" to profit from either. I dont understand what part of his use of other trademarks and logos you are failing to understand.
two wrongs do not make a right.
Voodoo_Man
02-11-15, 09:05
The companies logo or glocks is not "his" to profit from either. I dont understand what part of his use of other trademarks and logos you are failing to understand.
two wrongs do not make a right.
You do realize that when you purchase an item you have all rights to that specific item's image, logos and etc. The company of the item already profited off of that specific item. But if this is wrong, by all means, post case law in that regard to educate us.
Failure2Stop
02-11-15, 09:13
The companies logo or glocks is not "his" to profit from either. I dont understand what part of his use of other trademarks and logos you are failing to understand.
two wrongs do not make a right.
Anything not bound by a security classification can be photographed and shared by anyone that is not bound by some non-disclosure agreement.
The person/company that produced the image have all rights to that specific image, unless released to the public domain.
There are no "two wrongs" present in this situation.
wildcard600
02-11-15, 09:28
the photographer has right to the image of the photo, not the contents.
i would consult an attorney before you decide to persue legal action if it were me. Claiming "fair use" might not hold up in court in this case.
YMMV
Voodoo_Man
02-11-15, 09:32
the photographer has right to the image of the photo, not the contents.
i would consult an attorney before you decide to persue legal action if it were me. Claiming "fair use" might not hold up in court in this case.
YMMV
....what do you think we are talking about here?
wildcard600
02-11-15, 09:39
....what do you think we are talking about here?
Your use of others trademarked names and logos for commercial use witbout permission.
Do whatever you please. have a nice day.
Voodoo_Man
02-11-15, 09:43
the photographer has right to the image of the photo, not the contents.
i would consult an attorney before you decide to persue legal action if it were me. Claiming "fair use" might not hold up in court in this case.
YMMV
Your use of others trademarked names and logos for commercial use witbout permission.
Do whatever you please. have a nice day.
So I'll ask again, what are you talking about?
wildcard600
02-11-15, 09:49
So I'll ask again, what are you talking about?
please re-read my post. the photog owns the image, not the content, especially when it contains trademarked names and logos.
Please try this and report back - buy and take a picture of a BMW with the name and company logo easily and prominantly visible. Take out a full page ad in a major auto publication. report back on how long it takes BMW's legal team to contact you.
the photographer has right to the image of the photo, not the contents.
i would consult an attorney before you decide to persue legal action if it were me. Claiming "fair use" might not hold up in court in this case.
YMMV
What you are talking about is called "property release". The photographer owns the copyright to the photo, regardless of the subject of the photo. They are two different animals. Most of the time, legal issues of photographed trademarks has to do if it is assumed that the photo is sponsored by the trademark owner - not the case here and in fact the opposite.
Voodoo_Man
02-11-15, 09:56
What you are talking about is called "property release". The photographer owns the copyright to the photo, regardless of the subject of the photo. They are two different animals. Most of the time, legal issues of phografted trademarks has to do if it is assumed that the photo is sponsored by the trademark owner - not the case here and in fact the opposite.
He's got his mind made up or has read some bad info.
Interesting thread. Lots of info about copyrights that I didn't know.
IMO we are confusing legal behavior with ethical behavior. The two are NOT always mutually inclusive. G-Code should have corrected their error once they were informed that they used an image that was not public domain and fair game. It's as simple as that. I would bet that had they simply apologized to Voodoo and given credit where credit was due all would be right in the world. Ethically they chose poorly.
Legally, if I'm on that jury I would not rule against them unless there was other information against them. The image was not watermarked and while the law states that it's their job to protect your rights I don't agree with that. The artist made no attempt to protect his work so why should someone else have to. Sorry, not popular but that's how I see it. No fence, no signs, no attempt to notify people you want privacy = don't be surprised that people walk on your grass. However, if you can show they lifted it from your blog, edited the watermark or some other fact the verdict changes.
Interesting thread. Lots of info about copyrights that I didn't know.
IMO we are confusing legal behavior with ethical behavior. The two are NOT always mutually inclusive. G-Code should have corrected their error once they were informed that they used an image that was not public domain and fair game. It's as simple as that. I would bet that had they simply apologized to Voodoo and given credit where credit was due all would be right in the world. Ethically they chose poorly.
Legally, if I'm on that jury I would not rule against them unless there was other information against them. The image was not watermarked and while the law states that it's their job to protect your rights I don't agree with that. The artist made no attempt to protect his work so why should someone else have to. Sorry, not popular but that's how I see it. No fence, no signs, no attempt to notify people you want privacy = don't be surprised that people walk on your grass. However, if you can show they lifted it from your blog, edited the watermark or some other fact the verdict changes.
And once you have been notified in writing to stay off the grass, and continue to do so?
Which in this case they've basically crumpled up the written notice and tossed it away, and continue to use the grass as a thoroughfare.
skijunkie55
02-11-15, 11:17
And once you have been notified in writing to stay off the grass, and continue to do so?
Which in this case they've basically crumpled up the written notice and tossed it away, and continue to use the grass as a thoroughfare.
Yep. And if you trespass long enough without getting arrested, you can get granted an easement to continue to trespass! smh. the legal system in this country.
Voodoo - is there a way you can "right-click" proof the images on your website? Like make it so if someone goes to save an image, it'll prompt saying "copyright 2015 - name of blog"
Interesting thread. Lots of info about copyrights that I didn't know.
IMO we are confusing legal behavior with ethical behavior. The two are NOT always mutually inclusive. G-Code should have corrected their error once they were informed that they used an image that was not public domain and fair game. It's as simple as that. I would bet that had they simply apologized to Voodoo and given credit where credit was due all would be right in the world. Ethically they chose poorly.
Legally, if I'm on that jury I would not rule against them unless there was other information against them. The image was not watermarked and while the law states that it's their job to protect your rights I don't agree with that. The artist made no attempt to protect his work so why should someone else have to. Sorry, not popular but that's how I see it. No fence, no signs, no attempt to notify people you want privacy = don't be surprised that people walk on your grass. However, if you can show they lifted it from your blog, edited the watermark or some other fact the verdict changes.
So if someone leaves a mag on the table at a class and it is not marked would it be stealing if I took it
?
I know it's not mine but no one made an effort to claim it to be theirs.
Using your reasoning anything that's not bolted down is fair game.
Voodoo_Man
02-11-15, 11:32
Yep. And if you trespass long enough without getting arrested, you can get granted an easement to continue to trespass! smh. the legal system in this country.
Voodoo - is there a way you can "right-click" proof the images on your website? Like make it so if someone goes to save an image, it'll prompt saying "copyright 2015 - name of blog"
I let morals and ethics make the right decisions for others. If someone is of questionable morals or ethics they will eventually get outed - like the OP.
And once you have been notified in writing to stay off the grass, and continue to do so?
Which in this case they've basically crumpled up the written notice and tossed it away, and continue to use the grass as a thoroughfare.
Once notified and shown the error one should correct it. I would call that being ethical or doing the right thing. Like I said ethically they chose poorly. Legally, the artist made no attempt to protect his art so that's on him. After notification they should have done the right thing, and if they promptly remove the pic I wouldn't hold them liable for anything unless they continued to use an image they now knew to be not public domain.
So if someone leaves a mag on the table at a class and it is not marked would it be stealing if I took it
?
I know it's not mine but no one made an effort to claim it to be theirs.
Using your reasoning anything that's not bolted down is fair game.
The Internet is not the same as a small class. In a class you have access to the person who might have left it. Ethically I would ask.
I'd say the Internet is more like a Walmart parking lot. You pull in and find $1 bill on the ground with not a soul near by and you can't see anyone that may have dropped it. Do you run it by lost and found or pocket it? Ethically, the answer changes if you see a person drop it or think you saw a person drop it.
But on the Internet the "no soul nearby" doesn't apply. The image was placed somewhere for a specific reason. Just because someone isn't figuratively standing beside it and yelling doesn't mean it's ok to take, just like that mag.
But on the Internet the "no soul nearby" doesn't apply. The image was placed somewhere for a specific reason. Just because someone isn't figuratively standing beside it and yelling doesn't mean it's ok to take, just like that mag.
I beg to differ. You post an image on the Internet without a single attempt at identifying it as yours and you're the guy who pulled a $1 bill out of his pocket in a parking lot and drove home. I see no obligation on anyone's part to try a find you.
Again, had they used a watermarked image or linked to his blog where it was made obvious that he asserted copyright on the page contents it's different story.
It's not like the image in question fell outta his PC into the ground.
Justify stealing however you wish.
Guys, I think you all are confusing and/or ignoring various aspects of IP, intent and common sense.
I am not a lawyer, the following is opinion.
If you grab a photo off the Internet and know you did not produce it... then you owe credit to someone. Maybe it's a true public domain photo or maybe it's someone's current work they are profiting from.. doesn't matter, you have taken something that doesn't belong to you. One can reasonably assume that a modern item such as that holster is currently of some value to the one that produced it, even if that value is a simple notation of their name / web site under the photo or mentioned in your use of the photo.
So that's VooDoo Man's right to that picture...makes no difference what's in the photo.
I do this every day. I sell a service that has photos included. Every single picture is loaded with name brands and logos. TVs, Cars, Appliances, building materials, computer brands easily recognized like Apple.. I mean you name it.. it's there. But I'm not selling those items. That is not the intent of the photo. The photos simply support and help clarify a service I provide. I don't own any of the products yet I also don't need to ask permission to photograph them and in cases even describe them. My description though is not about how good a certain product is, but rather how it compares to others in cost and general utility. There are thousands upon thousands of people doing this same thing every day, everywhere.
Now if Voodoo Man photographs the Glock and the Holster with logo and says,, damn, that photo looks great and tries to sell it with the Glock logo and the holster logo as the focus of attention ( not just photographic focus ) but the intent of the photo.... then Glock and the holster company might seek a license fee. IOW, if he sold that photo to a gun shop and it clearly was not simply a pistol in a holster done in some sort of artistic manner such that the pistol and holster looked generic in nature but instead was clearly 'selling' Glock and the holster name... then he could be approached for fees from those companies.
In his blog he is basically selling a service... or giving it away... and the photo is simply descriptive in nature. Again that doesn't matter at all in regard to the photo being IP, no matter what. The other site that takes the photo has clearly no right what so ever to it... no matter if original owes fees to another or not.
Again I do this every day. I even have to mention if I use someone else's photos, which I have to do at times. I pay a fee for access to those photos but still have to say they came from someone other than me. Again it's not the content in my case but rather how it reflects on the service I sell. At the same time, my reports containing my photos and anyone else's are my copyright. At times my reports end up in the hands of those that were never intended to use it. They have no right to it. Plain and simple. If they published it by some means they would be in violation of my copyright even though some of my content contained many well know products.
It may seem convoluted but the intent is very important. VooDoo Man was not 'selling' a pistol or a holster. He was 'selling' his opinion and owes nothing to the pistol or holster company in that regard. He also would have a very hard time gaining any money as fee for the exact same reasons. If he tries to collect fees from this other site as a genric IP photo he would have a hard time because the photo alone ( out of his review context ) is very Glock+Holster centric so no one would want it. they don't want to get caught with a photo that Glock tells them they have to take down.
So the theft of IP is very real. The collecting of fees for IP theft is really near zero though, which is probably why everyone does it. The collecting of fees for logo copyright is also zero because that is not how VM used it thus it's not theft on his part. The logo owners could probably force him to remove them but that's about it. Even then simply blurring or re-composing the photo may be all that is needed. I don't think anyone has the time, desire or money for that nonsense though.
"Again, had they used a watermarked image or linked to his blog where it was made obvious that he asserted copyright on the page contents it's different story."
Copyright happens upon creation. Registering simply helps to protect. Lack of identification does not remove nor suggest someone doesn't own it. Basically if you didn't create it, someone else did and they have a copyright from the instant it was created. It is theirs. Simple test.... "Did I make this? If no, then someone else most likely still owns the rights to it. It's not "public domain" just because you can't figure out who it belongs to.... although that again is how a great deal of IP is treated in today's society.
.46caliber
02-11-15, 19:37
I beg to differ. You post an image on the Internet without a single attempt at identifying it as yours and you're the guy who pulled a $1 bill out of his pocket in a parking lot and drove home. I see no obligation on anyone's part to try a find you.
Again, had they used a watermarked image or linked to his blog where it was made obvious that he asserted copyright on the page contents it's different story.
Displaying the image on his own blog doesn't get any more claimed.
What happened is analogous to walking into an art gallery, scanning a photograph, and hanging the copy someplace else.
He has copyright the moment he clicks the button on the camera. Watermark or no, a photo belongs to its photographer.
Drawing a comparison to physical or monetary property isn't quite as parallel.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
it's not that hard to find ownership of a picture you find on the internet, do the right thing, give credit, and move on to maybe a possible partnership in the future
less than 5 second on an exif finder....result (http://regex.info/exif.cgi?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FhirbBQc.jpg)
Voodoo, you mentioned before what camera you use (sorry my age I forget what I just farted), I believe in the camera settings you can embed your very own watermark, visible only when typing certain combination of keystrokes....but then again, you probably know this already.
When I use to contribute in Pbase.com (atm highest res was 3-megapixel---told you I was old), n00bs like were told to watermark their pictures. Back then you have to add watermarking in Photoshop. Now I believe is embedded and geo-tagged if WiFi was enabled
Good luck
it's not that hard to find ownership of a picture you find on the internet, do the right thing, give credit, and move on to maybe a possible partnership in the future
less than 5 second on an exif finder....result (http://regex.info/exif.cgi?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FhirbBQc.jpg)
Voodoo, you mentioned before what camera you use (sorry my age I forget what I just farted), I believe in the camera settings you can embed your very own watermark, visible only when typing certain combination of keystrokes....but then again, you probably know this already.
When I use to contribute in Pbase.com (atm highest res was 3-megapixel---told you I was old), n00bs like were told to watermark their pictures. Back then you have to add watermarking in Photoshop. Now I believe is embedded and geo-tagged if WiFi was enabled
Good luck
Cameras imbed copyright and ownership info in the exif provided you've set it up.
Voodoo_Man
02-12-15, 04:25
As I already stated, I retain the original without a modified exif.
it's not that hard to find ownership of a picture you find on the internet, do the right thing, give credit, and move on to maybe a possible partnership in the future
less than 5 second on an exif finder....result (http://regex.info/exif.cgi?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FhirbBQc.jpg)
Voodoo, you mentioned before what camera you use (sorry my age I forget what I just farted), I believe in the camera settings you can embed your very own watermark, visible only when typing certain combination of keystrokes....but then again, you probably know this already.
When I use to contribute in Pbase.com (atm highest res was 3-megapixel---told you I was old), n00bs like were told to watermark their pictures. Back then you have to add watermarking in Photoshop. Now I believe is embedded and geo-tagged if WiFi was enabled
Good luck
This is something I didnt know. I had envisioned that finding owner of a copy of a copy of a copy on the WWW would be a bit more daunting a task.
Agree that once they knew they had an image not intended for public consumption they should have done the right thing and either removed it or credited it accordingly.
This is something I didnt know. I had envisioned that finding owner of a copy of a copy of a copy on the WWW would be a bit more daunting a task.
Agree that once they knew they had an image not intended for public consumption they should have done the right thing and either removed it or credited it accordingly.
I am not a lawyer nor giving legal advice...
It is more difficult than that. Most people strip the EXIF data and at the very least strip out the geocode data... that's a good way to get robbed. Facebook photos show items in people's homes. Geocode shows address... doesn't take a rocket scientist after that. EX: Indian family having a birthday party... everybody wearing 24K gold jewelry... follow on facebook,,, put 2+2 together with a little geocode data,, wait for them to go to dinner... fish in a barrel.
You are still assuming that the public, if not openly informed, have no obligation to assume someone else owns it. That is akin to going to court and pleading ignorance of the law. It simply is no defense. It doesn't work that way. Everyone knows if they create something it is theirs. They own it. Period. You are sort of trying to say the sun is not shining if you close your eyes. In stead you and everyone else --must-- assume that if the image is not of your creation, then someone else owns the rights. the burden is upon you, not the copyright holder, to do right.
EXIF data also tells everyone the camera settings and if someone took a really special picture they may not want anyone else to know the specifics. They have no obligation to publicly display ownership rights, contact info, or anything else.
It's a really simply no nonsense situation. Abused daily, but the legalities are actually pretty simply. Check out the guy that just won 4 grammys. He, by whatever means stole Tom Petty's melody. Maybe an accident, maybe subconsciousness, maybe handlers thinking what have we got to loose, who knows.... but TP&Co. now are noted as co writers ( although they neglected to mention that at the Grammy awards. ).
Same thing... that other site basically took VooDoo Mans melody(picture) and used it in another song(blog). Neither VoodMan nor TomP had to go around and say hey, this is mine, this is mine don't use it.... Instead... the user of it was obligated to do better research or face the penalties should they get caught with the goods.
The above is opinion based on real life happenings.
I beg to differ. You post an image on the Internet without a single attempt at identifying it as yours and you're the guy who pulled a $1 bill out of his pocket in a parking lot and drove home. I see no obligation on anyone's part to try a find you.
Again, had they used a watermarked image or linked to his blog where it was made obvious that he asserted copyright on the page contents it's different story.
You're essentially shifting the burden of proof here.
If you see an image on the internet, it's not for the owner to make it prominently known that you are not to steal it. The burden is for YOU to prove you can legally use it as it isn't your image.
If someone invites you to a party at his house and you want to take his TV, the proof isn't in the owner to hang a sign that says "no stealing". It's on the owner's property, that's assumed, even though you're allowed inside to view it. The image was on the OP's blog. That's roughly analogous.
Anything not bound by a security classification can be photographed and shared by anyone that is not bound by some non-disclosure agreement.
The person/company that produced the image have all rights to that specific image, unless released to the public domain.
There are no "two wrongs" present in this situation.
Another exception is copyrighted and trademarked material. You can't photograph a painting not in the public domain and sell it, for example. You also can't use trademarks in a way that would confuse the viewer. But neither of these situations are present in this case so yes, there are no "two wrongs" at issue.
Yep. And if you trespass long enough without getting arrested, you can get granted an easement to continue to trespass! smh. the legal system in this country.
There is no better legal "system". But yes, there are many absurd laws and rulings.
Voodoo - is there a way you can "right-click" proof the images on your website? Like make it so if someone goes to save an image, it'll prompt saying "copyright 2015 - name of blog"
Making something right-click proof won't stop a thief, it takes maybe 30 seconds to steal it even with right click protection. I mean by virtue of viewing the image online, it's already on your computer. And besides digging into the source of the page, you can printscreen and crop it without problem.
And he probably already has the copyright statement at the bottom of his page, like everyone does. That's not even legally required for copyright protection, but it's a good reminder for people. So I guess a right click copyright reminder might be a decent idea, but it's a hassle that honestly does less to prevent IP theft than a closed screen door does to prevent theft in your house.
Some people here need to read this.
The Professional Photographers Legal Handbook (http://www.amazon.com/The-Professional-Photographers-Legal-Handbook/dp/1581154771)
Two simple facts that people seem to not understand.
1) The photographer owns all copyright the moment the image is created. The photographer does not have to do a single thing to solidify this in any way, shape, or form. Regardless of any amount or lack thereof of watermarking, registration, et. al., the photographer still, unequivocally, owns the copyright to that image. Unless the photographer sells said copyright, which is dependent on what the photographer and the client have negotiated.
2)Licensing and copyright are two completely different topics and in this particular case have no bearing on one another as there is no product licensing involved, nor image licensing since the image was stolen.
So call a lawyer?
ROI for the damaged party just isn't there in OP's own estimation - hence the current approach applied. I personally agree with this - not enough to gain, and desired effect is achievable for free over forums.
My only complaint is that the image was used with the attempt of drawing business and creating profit from somebody else's uncompensated and unattributed work, and the manner of retraction is in my eyes unacceptable... it shouldn't take multiple pages for people to agree with these two statements.
it shouldn't take multiple pages for people to agree with these two statements.
I think people are just dumb and don't care, or their trolling. I'd hope that a few people were just trolling but it's unlikely.
Voodoo_Man
02-14-15, 06:54
I am currently in talks with g-code to resolve this situation Favorably for everyone.
Voodoo_Man
02-25-15, 13:44
Any updates?
Yea, ill make an update in a few days or next week.
We did figure some stuff out and gcode was very willing to do so in everyones best interest.
FlyingHunter
02-25-15, 17:50
Well - tell G-Code I acquired a new X-Concealment holster this week. I didn't even consider G-Code as I support my fellow M4C team. If they set things right, let us know, as I'm good with companies or people that make bone head decision and then resolve it honorably.
Voodoo_Man
02-25-15, 18:57
Well - tell G-Code I acquired a new X-Concealment holster this week. I didn't even consider G-Code as I support my fellow M4C team. If they set things right, let us know, as I'm good with companies or people that make bone head decision and then resolve it honorably.
They are definitely trying to make things right and I will update at the appropriate time.
Voodoo_Man
03-02-15, 08:55
I posted in reference to an image of mine used without my consent. I have had constructive conversation with G-Code and it has been determined that this was a misunderstanding. G-Code has handled it with well and with a high degree of integrity which has led to me doing some work with them in the future.
I have no ill feelings towards G-Code with regard to this situation, I even pointed out that I did a review of their INCOG Holster System and that I would like the opportunity to do another review of it since my original did not have positive results.
I even pointed out that I did a review of their INCOG Holster System and that I would like the opportunity to do another review of it since my original did not have positive results.
??? So you're planning on changing your review of their holster now???
I posted in reference to an image of mine used without my consent. I have had constructive conversation with G-Code and it has been determined that this was a misunderstanding. G-Code has handled it with well and with a high degree of integrity which has led to me doing some work with them in the future.
I have no ill feelings towards G-Code with regard to this situation, I even pointed out that I did a review of their INCOG Holster System and that I would like the opportunity to do another review of it since my original did not have positive results.
I'm glad there is a happy ending on the business end, and G-Code has lived up to the expectations of them doing the right thing.
Voodoo_Man
03-02-15, 11:06
??? So you're planning on changing your review of their holster now???
Hardly.
As I stated in my review, the holster was not mine, so I did not have the ability to modify the holster to my needs and it did not have the additional mag-pouch which completes the "system" of the holster. I also did not review it as a strong side holster either due to time constraints.
What it will do is allow me to have a more complete review of the system as it was designed and not how I was specifically using it. I'd consider the additional review to be a supplement of sorts to my original.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.