Think those pics on the internet are free to use? Think again.

[Bob Hubbard]

Former client of mine got a new web site done a while back.
(Not by me)
Either they gave their designer some pics, or he snagged a few off the web.
The copyright holder found out about this.
Sent them a bill, for $850 per image used.
They ignored it.
Sent them another bill.
Ignored.
Now, it's going to court.
Images are registered with the US Copyright office.
Use was a willful violation.
They ignored reasonable settlement offers.

Damages are now looking at oh, $150,000 PER IMAGE + legal fees.


Most of my stuff btw, is registered. ;)

[Twin Fist]

Eeeeeeek!!

[MA-Caver]

Yet a LOT of the photos found on the web are public domain are they not. The ones posted on the thread in the AfterDark forum here for example... at least the ones I've posted anyway.
Am thinking if there is a link that shows where the source of the (copyrighted) photos are ... ergo giving credit to the photographer and not trying to call it one's own then there shouldn't be any problem?

Shouldn't there?

[Bob Hubbard]

ok, you know those ICANHAZCHEEZEBURGER pics?
95% are violations.

Unless the shot specifically comes from a 'free to use' site, it's not.
The minute I push the shutter, the shot is copyrighted, to me.
If I register it, I get additional protections (and much higher payouts for violations).
But, I don't have to.
Also, cropping out, cloning out or obscuring a watermark = big no no & big fines.
A lot of the stock art is actively checked for by high priced management companies.

Oh, here's a tidbit to all the school owners.
Don't use photos you don't have express written permission for on your websites, fliers, etc.
Like say, that orange rocky guy from a certain famous comic series where the chick goes invisible, and that other guys a real flamer, on your tournament flier.

[Bob Hubbard]

Also, public domain doesn't mean not copyrighted.

[Bob Hubbard]

True story.
I do this series of Masters Portraits.
A student of one of the instructors took a copy of a portrait.
Edited it.
Posted the edit on his website.
The instructor, while having the right (which I issued) to display the web-tagged version on -his- website, did not have the right to allow another to do so.
The instructor also did not have the right (as I do not ever grant this) to edit my image, and as such did not have the right to grant his student that right.
I informed both of the violations.
We came to an amicable solution, with both wiser and hopefully better informed so that they avoid the situation in my original posting.


When I was actively doing a lot of web sites, as part of my contract, in order to protect myself from these situations I had a clause which was initialed that stated that all images presented to me for inclusion, were images that they had legal right to, and could grant me permission to include in their site, and edit as needed. Never had an issue, but am going to have to recheck a few things to ensure I'm protected from anyone being stupid like the subject of the OP.

[Archangel M]

In this day and age of the internet with the ease of copy/paste/save/post/share/etc. The "old school" copyright laws designed for non-digital works are showing their age. These multi thousand dollar demands are getting stupid IMO. There should be some sort of "traffic ticket" style fine with escalating fines based on number of offenses, REAL fiscal damage, or other circumstances. Some small potatoes website with copy/paste photos on it... $150,000 in damages?

Please. The law needs to catch up with the modern reality.

[Bob Hubbard]

It's an "up to" level. Calculating the actual damages is based on usage, going rates, etc. It's a rather complex thing. In part, it's based on willful violation, if the image was registered, and how much of an idiot you are in handling it.

The original offer of $850 per image was fair, considering the images were used on a commercial website, and are based on an industry wide scale used by all the major stock houses. In short, these weren't the $1 micro stock shots you see all over the place, but some really good work by a high end pro.

This is going to court because the violator is bluntly put, an idiot who thinks ignoring it will make it go away. As such, he's moved from the 'pay a fair market value' level into the 'I'm an idiot, please shove a legal fist up my hind end' stage, which is where those huge fines come into place.

But, $150k per images isn't unreasonable. If say, KISS ripped off one of my shots, used it as album cover and went platinum, what's that shot worth to me as the photographer?

[Archangel M]

KISS's ability to actually pay that amount is a different story. I've seen so many stupid awards given where the person is obviously not going to be able to pay. Many just declare bankruptcy and nobody gets much out of it at all. Like in that music copyright case where some woman living on a reservation was fined millions by the RIAA for filesharing. While wrong and punishable, these statutory awards are "old school" law being applied to new school rules IMO.

I still think that people who put their images up on the net are in a different world from the old days where photos had to be re-photographed/printed/etc to be used w/o permission.

I still think that there would be more money made by a wider but cheaper fine system. instead of suing people for millions just cite them for hundreds...but cite many more offenders.

[granfire]

yep, big problem.

There are people who had pictures snagged to find them in for sale ads (double whammie on the legal chard, since they never had possession of the item) or less nefarious on SIM type sites.

I think most everybody is guilty of it. However it is foolish to ignore a legal notice.

Most people do not suffer economic hardship, though they would probably appreciate the credit for the shot someone else thought worthy of using.

However, there is also a growing mind set of entitlement. Just because the event photographer put the image online for your viewing pleasure does not mean you are allowed to right click copy it and use it on facebook!

[Bob Hubbard]

There are 2 easy solutions though.

1- Don't steal someone elses work. That means think that just because it's there means you can use it for free.

2- Don't ignore notices and attempts at reasonable settlements.


Part of the misunderstanding in some cases is the number of people who erroneously thing "picture is of me, that means I own it." Not true.

When I worked mall studio photography, the studio would sell you a print for $18. (8x10). If you wanted the negative, that was $120, and it came with a copyright assignment that basically gave you full ownership, do what you want with it rights. So to them, the value of that shot was $120., though they'd often go as low as $65 if you also bought some prints.

Now, lets say I go to a tournament, and shoot a really cool action shot of one of those padded sticks, then the manufacturer takes that shot and puts it as the focal pic in their ad in Black Belt magazine. What's that shot worth? Well, based on industry calculations:
Type of Use:: Advertising
Specific Use:: Magazine
Press Run:: 10,000 to 50,000
Size:: 1/4 Page or Spot use
Low Price:: $325.00
Average Price:: $462.50
High Price:: $600.00

That's 1 time use. Multiple uses will change things.

Ah, but what if they want to use it on their web site?
Complex formula which takes into consideration how many months, how much traffic, uniqueness of the image, going market rate, etc.

John Harrington (he's shot presidents), charges $1,640 / image / year for shots for your homepage. By comparison, I've seen rates from other shooters from $500-$2,000 /image/yr for the same usage.

So, $850/image flat usage is cheap.

(Hmm....time to reexamine my own use rates...)

[Bob Hubbard]

btw, regarding the 'credit' option...I've long made my event shots available, at no charge, to anyone wanting to use them on facebook or a personal site, all I asked for was a credit and a link back.

I hardly got it. But I have had my work edited, cropped and so on. Pisses me off.

[granfire]

btw, regarding the 'credit' option...I've long made my event shots available, at no charge, to anyone wanting to use them on facebook or a personal site, all I asked for was a credit and a link back.

I hardly got it. But I have had my work edited, cropped and so on. Pisses me off.

What's worse is when it's absolutely obvious with 'PROOF' stamped all over the shot.

There is the deal: If you don't pay the man or woman behind the camera you will eventually run out of qualified and talented people to shoot events. You know, for the times when the cellphone picture just won't do it.

It has gotten to the point that some photographers charge a fee to view the pictures online. That is without even knowing if you made the album or if the shots are of any count. Not something I want to support, but the way the theft of this type of material goes, I think it's something we have to deal with.

[Sukerkin]

Well, colour me interested! What an unexpectedly fascinating subject. I have two distinct views on the matter of copyright in general.

One is as an ordinary human being who thinks that people should get due recompense for what their skills have produced.

The other is an economist (and AAT accountant with a side-salad of the appropriate contract law).

That's the side of me that thinks Angel has it right when he says that the copyright laws as presently formulated are a hopeless tool for the fast moving digital age.

Do you know who you can thank for the present silly duration of cpyright? Disney. They pushed and pushed to extend copyright to unreasonable lengths. Prior to that, copyright had a short duration judged to be long enough for a person to profit from their creativity and ideas without denying the rest of humanity the chance to benefit from or build upon those creations.

[Sukerkin]

I can't find again the video lecture I watched a few years ago that covered the nature of copyright in the digital age. However, I did stumble upon another interesting lecture on the topic:

CSeZYYTKq3o

Be warned, however, that the video poster saw fit to put some very distracting music over portions of it :shrugs:

Another take on the subject, specifically from an internet viewpoint:

YxLTUZCudcw

[Cryozombie]

A certain wannabe "Anshu" did the same thing to me. I had a copyrighted photo from a magazine I was using with permission from the photographer on my old Myspace site and she took it and used it without permission... caused quite a bit of greif over it but finally took it down when faced with legal threats.

[Bob Hubbard]

What's worse is when it's absolutely obvious with 'PROOF' stamped all over the shot.

I've had 2 models do that. One, oh, yesterday.


There is the deal: If you don't pay the man or woman behind the camera you will eventually run out of qualified and talented people to shoot events. You know, for the times when the cellphone picture just won't do it.

True and not true. There's enough decent amateurs that you'll always find a fair shooter.
But the pros won't touch you once word gets around...and we do network.


It has gotten to the point that some photographers charge a fee to view the pictures online. That is without even knowing if you made the album or if the shots are of any count. Not something I want to support, but the way the theft of this type of material goes, I think it's something we have to deal with.

A couple of the event shooters I was talking to take the idea of "you know they're gonna steal it, scan it, share it, pass it around. So price it so you get your money for the whole shoot up front. Anything afterwards is gravy. I try to stay affordable, but my event sales have been rather low.

[Brian R. VanCise]

Copyright laws are important to protect individuals. Unfortunately, not everywhere offers protection. Recently I found out that some of the martial material that I sell abroad has been found in China being hawked in mass quantities. (mass by my scale) On this end there is no recourse, no way to have any type of redress. I am just out of the loop on that one! :(

[Brian R. VanCise]

You also have to think Bob that is people use your work and spread it via word of mouth that you might get better sales down the road.

I think if you are a photographer in this day and age with digital everything that it is getting harder and harder unless you do weddings or are like Peter Lik and get your own TV show. It is a medium that has become more doable for the masses because of digital camera's. Note: that does not mean they are better because they are not but that they can come up with some thing half ways decent to replace what would have cost a lot more!

[Bob Hubbard]

Somewhere on a server in China, is an entire copy of MT. They ran a bot against the site, ripping it post by post, changed everyones names to other names. No images. Running on a bootleg version of vB. Nothing I could do but start blocking China from accessing MT.

[Bob Hubbard]

In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection. Even though registration is not a requirement for protection, the copyright law provides several inducements or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make registration.

Advantages of Copyright Registration



Copyright registration establishes a public record of the copyright claim.
Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, copyright registration is necessary for works of U.S. origin.
If made before or within five years of publication, copyright registration will establish prima facie evidence in court of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate.
If copyright registration is made within three months after publication of the work or prior to an infringement of the work, statutory damages and attorney's fees will be available to the copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only an award of actual damages and profits is available to the copyright owner.
Copyright registration allows the owner of the copyright to record the registration with the U. S. Customs Service for protection against the importation of infringing copies.

http://inventors.about.com/od/copyrights/a/copyright_2.htm

[granfire]

I've had 2 models do that. One, oh, yesterday.
oh my...




True and not true. There's enough decent amateurs that you'll always find a fair shooter.
But the pros won't touch you once word gets around...and we do network.
Well, yes, decent amateurs (and crappy 'pros') But the number of reliable people is going down across the board it seems.




A couple of the event shooters I was talking to take the idea of "you know they're gonna steal it, scan it, share it, pass it around. So price it so you get your money for the whole shoot up front. Anything afterwards is gravy. I try to stay affordable, but my event sales have been rather low.

Seems to be the trend sadly.

[granfire]

Somewhere on a server in China, is an entire copy of MT. They ran a bot against the site, ripping it post by post, changed everyones names to other names. No images. Running on a bootleg version of vB. Nothing I could do but start blocking China from accessing MT.

LOL, that is kind of funny.

But China is the world's worst about those copyright issues...

[Bob Hubbard]

You also have to think Bob that is people use your work and spread it via word of mouth that you might get better sales down the road.

Doesn't seem to work that way. My stuffs everywhere, but honestly in many cases I've got no idea who the folks using it are, and I wouldn't classify myself as being in demand. Also, 10 years of covering tournaments, I think I sold 5 cd's of pics. I've pretty much stopped attending events and covering them on 'spec' (The idea that someone will buy a cd of pro coverage shots). Not worth the gas to go across town (and I drive a hybrid, lol).


I think if you are a photographer in this day and age with digital everything that it is getting harder and harder unless you do weddings or are like Peter Lik and get your own TV show. It is a medium that has become more doable for the masses because of digital camera's. Note: that does not mean they are better because they are not but that they can come up with some thing half ways decent to replace what would have cost a lot more!

Very true. More and more people turn to "Uncle Larry" to do their coverage. "Larry" is that guy we all know. Always has the cool toys, and his camera is no exception. He might have a entry level prosumer DSLR like the Canon D60 and a nice 18-200mm IS lens. He plays with the cool modes, but loves to just lock it in Auto and use the on board flash to turn everyone into demons. (red eye). But "Larry" works a lot cheaper than the $500 to just show up experienced wedding shooter. So what if he cuts off grandma's head in half the shots. :D


The other problem is, microstock. In the old days, photographers would license their work for hundreds, often thousands of dollars, under rigid controlled and limited licenses. (This is the situation with the OP btw). Today, you can hit istock or shutterstock and for $1-5 get an image you can use indefinitely without worry on your web site.

(Note: If the subject of the OP had basically dropped $10 on microstock, they wouldn't be up the proverbial creek right now facing a serious business impact). When I can't satisfy a clients photo needs myself, I've turned to microstock for a few sites, usually to use as placeholder images until we can get in-house shots up.

But, unless you have tens of thousands of images in the mix, it's hard to make any money shooting for microstock, and you risk hitting gluts with too many similar shots. (case in point, it's hard to get a shot of Niagara Falls accepted as every angle's already been shot by a dozen other folks so isn't in demand).

[Bob Hubbard]

Well, yes, decent amateurs (and crappy 'pros') But the number of reliable people is going down across the board it seems.

I charge $15 for an 8x10 print. It's on pro paper, done in a pro lab. In short, it's quality that will last. Along comes someone else with a $99 ink jet printer and the bargain paper from Office*. They knock out prints for $5 on the spot.
They also shot for free, I ask for a $100 minimum guarantee a lot of the time (covers my gas, lunch and paying my assistant, not much else).
I have pro lights, he has the $99 start up special from the local photo shop. His work's all over the place, mine is spot on (I can crank out portraits in my sleep).
I have insurance, he doesn't.

Guess who I'm losing gigs to?

Then there was the event promoter who wanted my to drive 6 hours, spend 3 days covering his 200+ competator event, where he was expecting 1,000 spectators.
All on my dime.
I could sell cd's of the event at the event.
Oh, and give him a meager 40% of my profits to boot.

I told him what my day rate was, that I expected hotel, travel and meals as well.
That I'd split the cd sales with him 50/50, and if his event was as successful as he saw it, he'd still make a couple grand after paying me.

Never heard back, saw the work his buddy did, and we laughed.

Yeah.....and people wonder why I shoot models so much. LOL!

[granfire]

LOL, pretty much par for the course.

I had considered pointing you into the direction of horse show shooting...
but aside from horses being particular to shoot, horse people are cheap (though think nothing of dropping 3k on a new saddle, just because) and ******* crazy to boot!

:lfao:

[Bob Hubbard]

I know a photographer who is doing quite well with horse shows, but her work is spectacular. I also know she busts her ass to get the gigs, and is constantly dealing with newbies and competitors trying to undercut her.

I've found martial artists to be cheap. Had 1 $120/hr guy tell me a few years ago that my hosting rates were too high (was $60/yr at the time).

[Bob Hubbard]

Problem with copyright laws too is, they aren't universal. Places like China, don't care. They are beyond the reach of US law enforcement, and happy to flaunt it. While there are some differences between most nations laws, the US, Canada, Britain, and most of Europe honor each others and work together to enforce them. It's not easy should I have to say, sue someone in Canada, but it can and often is done. (Not by me yet).

In the event of unauthorized use, you usually start with the nice 'please remove it' letters, and escalate to the DMCA take down notice sent to the ISP, along with lawyers getting involved.

Regarding the OP. That was the procedure they followed. An infringement notice, a request for settlement and an offer to license going forward, followed by a demand for payment, followed by another demand, followed by a final notice, now passed over to a collections group, soon to go back to lawyers with a court summons. This particular former client, had a habit btw of 'never getting notices', despite being sent them in both hard and electronic format, complete with tracking...

Playing stupid, only costs you more later on. Never got a DMCA notice on them though. Weird.

[jks9199]

Y'know, I have a simple take on any sort of piracy like this.

I ask myself one simple question: Is the original creator/artist getting their take on their work by how I'm using it? If the answer is yes, then my use is probably OK, because I have either obtained permission, paid for it, or it was freely available otherwise. If the answer is no, then I don't use the item.

I'll admit, there was a time when I really didn't get how a photographer could copyright my face. But I've since learned the difference between a real pro's portrait, or even just the quick shots around an event, and realized that there is a huge difference, and a whole lot of work involved. And that's before any editing or other work with the image....

[granfire]

Y'know, I have a simple take on any sort of piracy like this.

I ask myself one simple question: Is the original creator/artist getting their take on their work by how I'm using it? If the answer is yes, then my use is probably OK, because I have either obtained permission, paid for it, or it was freely available otherwise. If the answer is no, then I don't use the item.

I'll admit, there was a time when I really didn't get how a photographer could copyright my face. But I've since learned the difference between a real pro's portrait, or even just the quick shots around an event, and realized that there is a huge difference, and a whole lot of work involved. And that's before any editing or other work with the image....

Well you can copyright your face...but honestly, most of us are not interesting enough for that....

[Archangel M]

Well, colour me interested! What an unexpectedly fascinating subject. I have two distinct views on the matter of copyright in general.

One is as an ordinary human being who thinks that people should get due recompense for what their skills have produced.

The other is an economist (and AAT accountant with a side-salad of the appropriate contract law).

That's the side of me that thinks Angel has it right when he says that the copyright laws as presently formulated are a hopeless tool for the fast moving digital age.

Do you know who you can thank for the present silly duration of cpyright? Disney. They pushed and pushed to extend copyright to unreasonable lengths. Prior to that, copyright had a short duration judged to be long enough for a person to profit from their creativity and ideas without denying the rest of humanity the chance to benefit from or build upon those creations.

With it so prevalent and happening with everybody from kids copying them to FB to outright commercial infringement, this "old school" method of lawsuits that do nothing but enrich attorneys and drag on for years should be seen as an obvious fail IMO. There needs to be new law on this issue that makes more sense.

[Makalakumu]

I don't know how they'll ever be able to enforce IP laws without destroying the internet as we know it. The whole idea driving the internet is about sharing information randomly with anyone who wants to look. As it grows organically and pervades our lives, I can see a time arriving quickly where IP laws become meaningless. The definition of theft will change because it's simply unenforceable to apply it to the internet. It's a step toward the hive mind collective conscious.

[Bruno@MT]

Copyright is a difficult issue on the web. Or rather, the line between fair use and infringement. Technically, every pic I make is copyrighted to me. Yet if I put them on the web for all to see, I am not expecting to receive income for it.

Same with the demotivational posters that often get posted in various places. Sure, the guy who made one has the copyright to it, but if he put it in a public location without notice, then what?

I am willing to concede that technically, I should receive written permission before posting it somewhere. But if we have to start doing that, who on earth is going to do the paperwork? One way or another, the lawyers will profit.

So my position is that if it is from someone who generates an income, or from an artist, etc I treat it as copyrighted and don't touch it. In other words: if it means something tangible for someone. If it was posted publicly on failblog or demotivational.com or whatever, I use it for personal / non profit use, and remove it if someone complains. By the same token, people are free to do whatever they want with the pics I put online for non commercial / non profit use.

[Bob Hubbard]

Just a minor point. You folks did notice the copyright notice on my current avatar right?
It's there to ensure my tush is protected when there's an issue later.
Now if someone sends me an email "hey bob, love the jet, you mind if I use the shot" I'm most likely to say "ok".
But if I find the shot elsewhere, and they cropped out my mark, I'll be nasty.

I as a photographer walk a fine line between risking misuse of my work, and needing to get it out there to be seen. Most of the 'click stop' stuff, doesnt work, huge watermarks just ruin the shot and a trained editor can edit that out anyway. So I go on trust, worry about the 'big' shots, and don't sweat the small things. Someone will probably like my pebble shot, use it as a background on a web site. I don't sweat it, but I don't earn tens of thousands from my photos yet either.

[jks9199]

Well you can copyright your face...but honestly, most of us are not interesting enough for that....
Hell, except for my mother & my wife who opinions may be a bit biased... I'd probably be better off asking for donations to live wearing a gunny sack over my face!

[Bob Hubbard]

Actually, no. Can't copyright your face, but you can register it as a trademark. :D

You can copyright a photo or painting or drawing or CGI rendition however. :D

[Bob Hubbard]

Who is an author?
Under the copyright law, the creator of the original expression in a work is its author. The author is also the owner of copyright unless there is a written agreement by which the author assigns the copyright to another person or entity, such as a publisher. In cases of works made for hire, the employer or commissioning party is considered to be the author. See Circular 9 (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf), Work-Made-For-Hire Under the 1976 Copyright Act.

What is copyright infringement?
As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner.

Where is the public domain?
The public domain is not a place. A work of authorship is in the “public domain” if it is no longer under copyright protection or if it failed to meet the requirements for copyright protection. Works in the public domain may be used freely without the permission of the former copyright owner.

What is a work made for hire?
Although the general rule is that the person who creates the work is its author, there is an exception to that principle; the exception is a work made for hire, which is a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or a work specially ordered or commissioned in certain specified circumstances. When a work qualifies as a work made for hire, the employer, or commissioning party, is considered to be the author. See Circular 9 (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf), Work-Made-For-Hire Under the 1976 Copyright Act.


http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html

[Bob Hubbard]

See how much you know about copyright
http://plagiarism.umf.maine.edu/copyright/copy_infrin.html

Short yes-no quiz.

[Steve]

$850 is overpriced... by a lot, unless the photo is specific and unique to the project. Royalty free stock photography of high quality cam be purchased for around $12. That's for a large, wditable, royalty free image._ look at sites like istockphoto.com.

[Xue Sheng]

And now...I shall start linking pictures of Mickey Mouse that are directly from Disney to MT :D

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ijF9TNjBOCA/Sq1KIzHEdLI/AAAAAAAAEbI/B9rSSGfZxIg/s400/We%27re_Watching_You.png

[Bob Hubbard]

$850 is overpriced... by a lot, unless the photo is specific and unique to the project. Royalty free stock photography of high quality cam be purchased for around $12. That's for a large, wditable, royalty free image._ look at sites like istockphoto.com.
It is, and it isn't.

To be honest, most photos on the stock sites are crap, and there's a huge glut on the market because every guy with a camera submits to them. My work's worth more than my nephews for example. $850 is in the area for what I charge for a Masters Portrait with full rights assignment. Ed Parker used to charge about $2k for his work. Don't know what the current rate is.

Regardless though, maybe the shot IS over priced. The photographer can still list it as such, and insist on the fee in a case of misuse. Just because you don't like the cost of a Ferarri because an Escort is cheaper, doesn't mean you can get the Ferrari at Ford prices, n all that.

I checked, and the requested fee for one of the images, is $475/year, secondary placement. There are comparable images at iStock for $1-30 bucks.


Like I said earlier though, you can find guys selling solid shots for $2,000, and others who'll do it for a 6 pack or byline. At the end of the day though, the images were used without the artists permission, weren't paid for, and as such violated copyright law by a mile.

And please, no Mikey Mouse stuff.....Disney'd chew us like Goofy on a bone.

:D

[granfire]

And now...I shall start linking pictures of Mickey Mouse that are directly from Disney to MT :D

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ijF9TNjBOCA/Sq1KIzHEdLI/AAAAAAAAEbI/B9rSSGfZxIg/s400/We%27re_Watching_You.png


Be careful! I hear Disney is one of the most adamant in terms of following through on the copyright infringements.

[Brian R. VanCise]

Peter Lik's photos roughly start selling around $4,000 and believe you me they are worth it when you see them in his gallery. Simply amazing! So the price of a photo is really what the copyright holder wants it to be and lists it as such. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/images/icons/icon6.gif

[Steve]

It is, and it isn't.

To be honest, most photos on the stock sites are crap, and there's a huge glut on the market because every guy with a camera submits to them. My work's worth more than my nephews for example. $850 is in the area for what I charge for a Masters Portrait with full rights assignment. Ed Parker used to charge about $2k for his work. Don't know what the current rate is. It's going to depend on what you're doing, your reputation and the quality of your work. I get that. But you're making some pretty sweeping generalizations. I would say that MOST work on the internet, including privately owned stuff, is crap, and that it's not worth more than $50 tops for royalty free usage.

I am not disagreeing on your research or points regarding copyright. I understand the rules pretty well. I'm just saying that there's usually very little reason to steal a photo. You can often ask and get it for free, or pay what is often an insignificant amount of money for rights. Exclusive rights might cost $800 or more, but the simple, royaty free rights to an image are cheap.

The real point I'm trying to make is that it's like stealing a candy bar. Why get caught stealing something you can buy for practically nothing. That, and this guy is probably overly optimistic about the marketability of his product. :)

[Bob Hubbard]

You're right you can get similar for less. But (always a but) is why can you buy a car for $500, and others cost over a million bucks? My grandfather went on and on the one day, about "who the hell would need to pay $1M for a house!". Because in WNY, you can get a comparable house for $65k. My mothers for example, if picked up as-is and dropped on a same size lot in the Bay Area would suddenly be worth 10x what she paid for it in Buffalo. Same, exact, house.


That, and this guy is probably overly optimistic about the marketability of his product.
Nope, he's that good. He's also represented by one of the top 2 stock shops. iStock, etc are no where near "top shop" status.

Of course, one also has to compare with martial arts instruction. Why pay for lessons at $150/mo when there's someone "comparable" who'll do it for a 6pack?

Putting it another way.... is an Ansel Adams original really worth $10,000 when there are hundreds of other shots of the same pile of rocks out there?

Regardless of what you (or I) see the value of an image at, the produce can place whatever fair value (which in this case is based on industry wide standards) he sees fit. If someone wants to use that image, it's up to them to negotiate and pay for that right. When they don't, there are laws to protect the creator from the theft (which is what this is) of their intellectual property.

As a photographer, I'm in total agreement with the rights holder enforcing their rights and pursuing compensation.

Royalty free rights costs will vary, depending on if you're playing in the 'penny stock' field, or the 'big leagues'.

Someone like Adams, wouldn't be caught dead on iStock. (Not knocking them, I buy their stuff regularly for clients.).

(Hope that makes sense, in need of serious pain meds right now so eyes aint focusing for nada)

[Bob Hubbard]

let me rephrase, I got rambly there.

basically I agree with you. In this case, the violator had much cheaper and possibly free options available (including ironically his own collection of owned images on the same subject as the ones he illegally used). Instead he (or his designer) snagged a couple images that were not free, edited out the EXIF data and watermark, and used them on a for-profit site. They got caught, and after ignoring settlement options for a year, look to be heading to court and a high $$ hit as a result.

[Steve]

If you say this guy is that good, I won't argue. Most aren't. And most people couldn't tell the difference.

I think it's less like cars than audio. You can buy a good surround system for about $500. For almost everyone, this is going to be adequate. Most people would hear a difference between this one and a really good one that costs about a grand. But there are people who spend 10x this amount or more on just the speakers. And then another 10 grand or so on the amp. I won't say that there isn't an improvement. I will say that the difference between a $1000 system and a $20,000 would be lost on me, and I'm comfortable saying that most people would agree (if they're being honest.)

[Steve]

let me rephrase, I got rambly there.

basically I agree with you. In this case, the violator had much cheaper and possibly free options available (including ironically his own collection of owned images on the same subject as the ones he illegally used). Instead he (or his designer) snagged a couple images that were not free, edited out the EXIF data and watermark, and used them on a for-profit site. They got caught, and after ignoring settlement options for a year, look to be heading to court and a high $$ hit as a result.
And I agree with you completely. He would likely have been just as satisfied with a legal and inexpensive alternative to theft. :D

[Bruno@MT]

My avatar is obviously something I created myself, coloring individual pixels in notepad until the resulting image looked like count duckula.

Btw I agree with Bob that removing watermarks etc is bad. The fact that someone made the (small) effort to mark it means that he cares about his copyright. Making an effort to remove that is acting in bad faith.

[Xue Sheng]

Be careful! I hear Disney is one of the most adamant in terms of following through on the copyright infringements.

Why do you think I picked Disney :EG:

[Steve]

Why do you think I picked Disney :EG:There's a somewhat well known story where Disney lawyers went after a daycare for painting pictures of Winnie the Pooh characters on their walls as murals. Harsh... but necessary if they don't want to lose their trademark.

Just for what it's worth (and as a disclaimer, I'm not a lawyer, so this is my lay understanding), we're mixing up two different things here. A specific image is copyrighted (copywritten? :) ) by the creator. Whether it's a book, poem, image, song or whatever.

[Xue Sheng]

There's a somewhat well known story where Disney lawyers went after a daycare for painting pictures of Winnie the Pooh characters on their walls as murals. Harsh... but necessary if they don't want to lose their trademark.

Just for what it's worth (and as a disclaimer, I'm not a lawyer, so this is my lay understanding), we're mixing up two different things here. A specific image is copyrighted (copywritten? :) ) by the creator. Whether it's a book, poem, image, song or whatever.

I'm not mixing up anything.....and am I taking this all too seriously either.... but Disney is not someone you want to cross on any front.

I dealt with this before at a state office I use to work at; someone took pictures off of a site, 2 different sites actually, and put them on a state website (this is what happens when you let a PhD in Geology make web pages :rolleyes: ). Both pictures were under a copyright. One guy, or possibly his lawyer contacted said sate office and basically said take it down or I will charge you. The other guy went right for a $7000 charge. I have no idea how it came out since shortly after that I left that department.

[MA-Caver]

A while back I took an image from a newsletter that I used to receive and enlarged it and then put it on a t-shirt and colorized it and volia a one of a kind shirt. Couple years later after that, I go to a national convention and lo, there I met the actual artist of the drawing. She recognized it immediately even though her drawing was a line black n white. She loved it she told me.
I asked her about my using her image without her permission and she laughed, gave me an affectionate slap on the arm saying "I'm not complaining and the only person who WOULD complain would probably be my agent."
Like Bob, as an artist I don't mind someone else using my work as long as I get credit for it and it isn't altered. Photography is a highly competitive field to begin with and Kudos to Bob for sticking with it and working hard to make it work/pay off.

Question comes to my mind are the photos located in the "pictures that make you go hmm" section of the forum. I'm sure quite a few are "illegals"... do we go ahead and kill the thread and have the data erased from the server so that it can't come back and bite Bob on the ass? Or???

[Bob Hubbard]

I'm only liable for the ones I post. Beyond that, it gets complicated.
We also respond to all complaints and take down demands.
So, no worries. Also, we're not profiting by it. It would be different if we were using those images to draw traffic, as part of our design, and so on.

I mean, it's not like MT is the Texas Department of Public Safety (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/11/suit-centers-on-silhouette-cowboy.html).

[Xue Sheng]

\Also, we're not profiting by it.


http://blog.lib.umn.edu/bgleason/pt/money_wheelbarrow2.jpg

[Bob Hubbard]

Oh I wish. I wish. But can I have that in Canadian Dollars or Euros? I like stable currency. :D

[Xue Sheng]

how about

http://www.nicksalyers.com/wp-content/gallery/images/monopoly-money-748981.jpg

or

http://www.foxnews.com/images/466841/0_61_111708_IndonesianRupiah.jpg

That is about... :hmm: ...$5.66 American :D