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:

[yt]CSeZYYTKq3o[/yt]

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:

[yt]YxLTUZCudcw[/yt]

 

[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.