Publication using my pictures

F01LA said:
I'm not saying a major lawsuit is the appropriate action here, but this is a big deal that the publication needs to know about. As an occasional content creator myself, I try to respect copyright and make sure that others respect mine. The myth that something is free or can be used with credit just because it's on the Internet unfortunately continues to persist ("Look at all the exposure you're getting!").
Click to expand...

Speaking of exposure...

https://theoatmeal.com/comics/exposure
 
The fact is that IP lawsuits are incredibly expensive whether it's copyright or patent (or trade secret). Some folks (aka Patent Trolls) make a business of pursuing claims - often they have lawyers on staff. In certain cases, one can sped $50,000 or more just to get a non-infringement opinion (BTDT). And the amount of compensation one might get is generally pretty low (unless the infringer is a really big company and the IP is key to revenue from their products... see Apple vs Samsung).

For photos, the value is typically low. And even then, some buildings and architecture are alos "protected" (some stock photo companies require obtaining both model releases from anyone who is in the photo, and broader releases for architecture, unique buildings, sculpture, etc). It gets sticky where fair-use and commercial value intersect. It's also why DMCA is heavily used in the online world & by big companies - they have the resources to pursue.

Nasty grams are easy and relatively inexpensive.... They're also usually a prerequisite to lawsuits.
 
Bell206 said:
Well don't be surprised if the author claims Fair Use. It's one way a person can use your published material without permission. I've been there. There are minimums they have to abide by. But maybe they'll just give you credit for the pic. Curious to see how they respond.
Click to expand...

There never been fair use of an unmodified picture. The image itself is a complete image and automatically copyrighted by the author.

No doubt this is a copyright violation. The question is what you can do.
 
bflynn said:
There never been fair use of an unmodified picture.
Click to expand...
If by "modify" you mean "transformative" then that was one of the issues in my case. The other was the author claimed commentary fair use. However, considering the cost to pursue the matter I elected to drop it. Since then I now register any copyright of value to cover all options.
 
What about if the photo is of something that I own?
ie. Like the avatar to the left.
Airplane? Bought n paid for (by me)
Photo? Lifted from Flightaware or Airliners.net etc
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
What about if the photo is of something that I own?
ie. Like the avatar to the left.
Airplane? Bought n paid for (by me)
Photo? Lifted from Flightaware or Airliners.net etc
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter... still a copyright violation, if you didn't take the picture. Think of it this way: You go get a family portrait done by a professional photographer. It's YOU in the picture, but you (typically) don't own the rights to the picture, and can't legally copy it.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
What about if the photo is of something that I own?
ie. Like the avatar to the left.
Airplane? Bought n paid for (by me)
Photo? Lifted from Flightaware or Airliners.net etc
Click to expand...

Simple rule, copyright belongs to the photographer (there are special rules about some buildings though, as noted above).

I saw a news article where a celebrity copied a photo that someone else had taken of them, and shared it on their (the celebrity's) social media. The photographer filed a lawsuit against the celebrity. I read the article comments (my first mistake) and was shocked at how many people thought that copyright didn't matter, and the celebrity had a right to do whatever with the photo since it was of them. If your plane, house, car, or you are out in public, anyone can take a photo and they have copyright.

Also, as DaleB says above, you can't make copies of a pro photographer's image of you. They still own the copyright.

I found a link to the celebrity case:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/davidmack/ariana-grande-sued-lawsuit-paparazzi-instagram
 
Last edited:
DaleB said:
Doesn't matter... still a copyright violation, if you didn't take the picture. Think of it this way: You go get a family portrait done by a professional photographer. It's YOU in the picture, but you (typically) don't own the rights to the picture, and can't legally copy it.
Click to expand...

I think that might come under "work for hire." It depends on the small print.

Rich
 
Google is probably the biggest exploiter of the more arcane aspects of copyright law. If you want to embed a Google "Street View" map of your own property on your Web side, you have to get an API key and pay Google for the privilege. Mind you, Google took the picture of your property and published it without your consent, yet you still have to pay Google if you want to embed it.

Rich
 
F01LA said:
Simple rule, copyright belongs to the photographer (there are special rules about some buildings though, as noted above).

I saw a news article where a celebrity copied a photo that someone else had taken of them, and shared it on their (the celebrity's) social media. The photographer filed a lawsuit against the celebrity. I read the article comments (my first mistake) and was shocked at how many people thought that copyright didn't matter, and the celebrity had a right to do whatever with the photo since it was of them. If your plane, house, car, or you are out in public, anyone can take a photo and they have copyright.

Also, as DaleB says above, you can't make copies of a pro photographer's image of you. They still own the copyright.

I found a link to the celebrity case:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/davidmack/ariana-grande-sued-lawsuit-paparazzi-instagram
Click to expand...
There are situations where the individual owns the rights to their likeness. This is why photo/model releases are necessary when the photographer intends to commercially use the image. Exceptions apply to public figures and events. Likewise fair use applies for news and other events.
 
wsuffa said:
There are situations where the individual owns the rights to their likeness. This is why photo/model releases are necessary when the photographer intends to commercially use the image. Exceptions apply to public figures and events. Likewise fair use applies for news and other events.
Click to expand...

Stock photo sites usually divide these into "commercial" versus "editorial" licenses. The over-simplified difference is that if the picture is taken in the context of a newsworthy event, no release is needed whether for people, buildings, trademarks, or anything else. Pictures taken of businesses for legitimate review purposes are also considered "editorial" in most cases.

Rich
 
GMascelli said:
While thumbing through a recent flying publication I noticed a picture that looked very familiar. Sure enough it was a photo I took while in flight..
Click to expand...


Ummm...uhhh..... you were wearing clothes during the flight in the picture that was used..?? (I am really hoping so....)
 
RJM62 said:
I think that might come under "work for hire." It depends on the small print.

Rich
Click to expand...
Well, in 40 years of having family portraits done... I've never seen an instance where the copyright wasn't owned by the photographer. Im sure there could be exceptions.
 
F01LA said:
If your plane, house, car, or you are out in public, anyone can take a photo and they have copyright.
Click to expand...

So I guess I am in violation with my avatar of my airplane <--- (seems a little crazy)

OK, what if I take a photo of someone's photo of my plane? We would both have copyright on the image.

Or, someone posts my airplane on the net, and through a series of 50,000 transfers involving picture of a picture, (iphone photo of a photo, not copying a jpg) they could not trace who made the original copy of the copyrighted photo!
 
DaleB said:
Well, in 40 years of having family portraits done... I've never seen an instance where the copyright wasn't owned by the photographer. Im sure there could be exceptions.
Click to expand...

Actually, the work-for-hire is the exception. By default, the copyright belongs to the photographer unless he or she is an actual employee.

What I meant was that the contract can stipulate that the copyright belongs to the person who commissioned the picture, which is something I'd personally insist on if I were commissioning the portrait. Conversely, it's something I did routinely when I used to shoot videos for clients, back before most of the world's cell phones could take FHD video. If the client was paying for my time, travel, room and board, plus the time I spent editing the video, I thought it right that the client should own the finished work. But had that not been specified in the contract, I'd be the copyright owner.

The same principle applies to Web sites that I write. With the exception of a few proprietary scripts for spam filtering and the like, I register the copyright to the client, not to myself. It's my personal belief that the person paying for the site should own it. But that's an exception to the law.

Rich
 
I just wanted to update....

I did receive an email from the editor of the publication, not from the author of the article.

First, Gary, let me offer my apologies.

I've conferred with the author and he doesn't remember where he got the image. I'll accept without argument your statement that it's one of your photographs. My guess is that, as incestuous as the Internet is, the author found it on some web site—perhaps not even where you originally published it—that didn't carry a clear copyright notice, which is a common source of photographs for us.

Be that as it may, I can offer one of the following remedies.

a. I’ll spank the author, again advise all our authors that images from the Internet need to be carefully reviewed for rights, again offer my apologies, and we move on.
b. Pay you for the rights. Unfortunately, photos are cheap and our budget is shallow. Our standard fee to photographers for file photos is $30.
c. Print an after-the-fact photo credit. While I’m willing to do this, it’s somewhat awkward and really wouldn’t look right. If this option is attractive to you, I’d probably print a short note ostensibly from you, a short apologetic reply saying it was an innocent mistake, and I’d reprint the photo with your credit.

I’ve been at the helm of ______ for nearly seven years and we’ve never encountered this problem before. I only mention that to further try to reassure you that we don’t make a habit of grabbing photos without the rights. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

It’s your choice, Gary. How can we make this right for you?

Maybe I'll ask for my annual subscription to be updated and call it even. At least they took the time to respond to my email, I do appreciate that. I just wanted to bring closure to the initial post and hopefully, the next time, the author thinks about using pics from a source without giving credit.
 
sounds good to me....cept I'd ask, in lieu of money, maybe, three years subscription. It's funny money and that won't cost him anything.;)
 
It was me, I'd ask them to make a $100.00 donation to Angel Flight (or some other notoriously worthy enterprise), and give you a credit in response to to a published "Dear, Editor, I saw my photograph published, and I'm glad it might help to illustrate an article associated with safer flying..."
 
Ventucky Red said:
Add this to your resume "published in an aviation journal..."
Click to expand...

Great idea. I ought to do that as I had a picture I took published in QST, with proper attribution, too. And some other pictures I took in a chapter of the ARRL's RFI Handbook (a chapter I wrote for them)

Shepherd said:
In this country we have Small Claims Court, for cases less than $5,000.00 (?) No lawyer required.
Sort of like Judge Judy without TV cameras.
I've used it a couple of times, with good results.
Click to expand...

Likewise. I used it once about 25 years ago in California. No lawyers allowed and we won. Easily.
 
GMascelli said:
I just wanted to update....

I did receive an email from the editor of the publication, not from the author of the article.

First, Gary, let me offer my apologies.

I've conferred with the author and he doesn't remember where he got the image. I'll accept without argument your statement that it's one of your photographs. My guess is that, as incestuous as the Internet is, the author found it on some web site—perhaps not even where you originally published it—that didn't carry a clear copyright notice, which is a common source of photographs for us.

Be that as it may, I can offer one of the following remedies.

a. I’ll spank the author, again advise all our authors that images from the Internet need to be carefully reviewed for rights, again offer my apologies, and we move on.
b. Pay you for the rights. Unfortunately, photos are cheap and our budget is shallow. Our standard fee to photographers for file photos is $30.
c. Print an after-the-fact photo credit. While I’m willing to do this, it’s somewhat awkward and really wouldn’t look right. If this option is attractive to you, I’d probably print a short note ostensibly from you, a short apologetic reply saying it was an innocent mistake, and I’d reprint the photo with your credit.

I’ve been at the helm of ______ for nearly seven years and we’ve never encountered this problem before. I only mention that to further try to reassure you that we don’t make a habit of grabbing photos without the rights. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

It’s your choice, Gary. How can we make this right for you?
Click to expand...
Not a surprising reply. I know a few authors (including me) and it's not uncommon to just grab some photo off the Internet and use it on the incorrect belief that because it's there it's free to use. I know better but most probably don't. The publishers and editors try to police it by letting authors know permission is needed but it obviously doesn't always work.
 
Found on the internet does not equate to PUBLIC DOMAIN. If they frequently obtain photos in that matter, they are begging for a lawsuit. There's no requirement that things be marked to assert rights.
 
I don't do a lot of photography, but I've had prose ripped off of my sites and put elsewhere. A DMCA takedown usually is the easiest way. I put big notices on my site telling people that "found on the internet" doesn't imply the right to copy as you please and to ask for permission. For many non-commercial sites, I generally grant it for free. Frankly, if the SPA had asked I'd have offered the picture (and the others in the same series) for just a credit.
 
That was a gracious reply from the editor. I was expecting you to get none at all. I like the "trade ya for a free subscription" counter idea. Seems like a classy win for everyone.

I'm one of those who do not value photographs. I also get annoyed by those who attach great value to their snowflake captures (not OP in this case). Nothing gets my goat quicker than someone who took some banal snapshot and then sullies the lower third of the image with SELF IMPORTANT DUDE PHOTOGRAPHY AND ART 2019 and some cute icon, or worse, a URL link where I might go and imbibe more of his genius.

If photos are worth thousands each, then my eyeballs have seen $quadrillions. So has every slumdog millionaire, bird, ant, and flea.
 
schmookeeg said:
That was a gracious reply from the editor. I was expecting you to get none at all. I like the "trade ya for a free subscription" counter idea. Seems like a classy win for everyone.

I'm one of those who do not value photographs. I also get annoyed by those who attach great value to their snowflake captures (not OP in this case). Nothing gets my goat quicker than someone who took some banal snapshot and then sullies the lower third of the image with SELF IMPORTANT DUDE PHOTOGRAPHY AND ART 2019 and some cute icon, or worse, a URL link where I might go and imbibe more of his genius.

If photos are worth thousands each, then my eyeballs have seen $quadrillions. So has every slumdog millionaire, bird, ant, and flea.
Click to expand...

I watermark clients' photos and videos that I edit and use on their sites, and my own photos that I use that also are listed on stock sites. The rest I don't worry about. It's nice when someone actually asks me if they can use them, which happens pretty often; but I don't lose sleep over it if they don't. The ones I think are saleable are already listed as such. The rest are just snapshots.

There are very few pictures worth more than a few dollars nowadays. Digital cameras and microstock sites brought the value of photographs way, way down by enabling many more people to easily upload and sell decent-quality pictures with non-exclusive licenses. Pictures that can command hundreds or thousands of dollars are the exception rather than the rule.

Rich
 
Last edited:
GMascelli said:
I just wanted to update....

I did receive an email from the editor of the publication, not from the author of the article.

First, Gary, let me offer my apologies.

I've conferred with the author and he doesn't remember where he got the image. I'll accept without argument your statement that it's one of your photographs. My guess is that, as incestuous as the Internet is, the author found it on some web site—perhaps not even where you originally published it—that didn't carry a clear copyright notice, which is a common source of photographs for us.

Be that as it may, I can offer one of the following remedies.

a. I’ll spank the author, again advise all our authors that images from the Internet need to be carefully reviewed for rights, again offer my apologies, and we move on.
b. Pay you for the rights. Unfortunately, photos are cheap and our budget is shallow. Our standard fee to photographers for file photos is $30.
c. Print an after-the-fact photo credit. While I’m willing to do this, it’s somewhat awkward and really wouldn’t look right. If this option is attractive to you, I’d probably print a short note ostensibly from you, a short apologetic reply saying it was an innocent mistake, and I’d reprint the photo with your credit.

I’ve been at the helm of ______ for nearly seven years and we’ve never encountered this problem before. I only mention that to further try to reassure you that we don’t make a habit of grabbing photos without the rights. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

It’s your choice, Gary. How can we make this right for you?

Maybe I'll ask for my annual subscription to be updated and call it even. At least they took the time to respond to my email, I do appreciate that. I just wanted to bring closure to the initial post and hopefully, the next time, the author thinks about using pics from a source without giving credit.
Click to expand...
That's more than I was expecting that you'd get.
 
I'm sorry, but there's a world of difference between a person pointing their iPhone at something and a professional photographer. I'm certainly not the latter but you can definitely see the artistic effort in those. Take a look at RossPilot's work sometime. The architectural photographer I use (see the photo at left, his stuff looks much better above avatar size) is another. You deny these people a living because you think it's OK to steal from them because their work "isn't worth what they are asking" when there are paying customers who have the morals and appreciation of the work to buy it.

I've never expected to see a bunch of greedy, self-justifying attitudes as I've seen in this thread.
 
flyingron said:
I'm sorry, but there's a world of difference between a person pointing their iPhone at something and a professional photographer. I'm certainly not the latter but you can definitely see the artistic effort in those. Take a look at RossPilot's work sometime. The architectural photographer I use (see the photo at left, his stuff looks much better above avatar size) is another. You deny these people a living because you think it's OK to steal from them because their work "isn't worth what they are asking" when there are paying customers who have the morals and appreciation of the work to buy it.
Click to expand...

As with anything else in a free-market economy, the picture ultimately is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. If the photographer is demanding "too much," then the only ethical option is to walk away and not use the photo.

For most illustration purposes, unless you need a picture of some specific person or thing, chances are there's some alternative photo available for a few bucks from a microstock site with a non-exclusive, perpetual, royalty-free license. It probably won't be as good a photo, but it probably will be good enough. There may also be pictures available under the bazillion "share" licenses (Creative Commons et al.) or legitimately in the public domain. There's never a good excuse to simply steal a picture.

On the other hand, a lot of the pictures I've taken have been lifted (with or without consent) because although far from spectacular, they met someone's needs for a project. I never listed them with stock companies because there simply wasn't enough demand for, say, pictures of generator wiring that I took to illustrate my own blog post, to get them past the editors. And yet someone at a BOCES school thought they was fantastic and asked to use them in their training course.

Pictures like that are often lifted, with or without permission, because stock agency editors are notorious for rejecting pictures that they don't think are saleable. You can find millions (literally) of pictures of models pretending to be office workers; but try to find a decent stock photo of an A&P replacing a mag on a Cessna, and chances are you'll be out of luck. Stock photo companies are like retail stores: They want to stock the stuff that's going to sell out, not the stuff for which there's limited demand.

I've often thought about starting up a stock photo company specializing in that sort of oddball stuff. But I'm getting too lazy in my old age.

flyingron said:
I've never expected to see a bunch of greedy, self-justifying attitudes as I've seen in this thread.
Click to expand...

I can't speak to your expectations, but I don't think there's been a lot of greed articulated in the thread. Observations of the arcane nature of copyright law, yes.

Rich
 
The observation that it was OK to steal a photo off the internet because "it isn't worth" much is little but that.
 
Somewhat related.

Years ago (pre-internet) I got a "Model release" form from IBM along with $1. Seems someone had taken a picture of my sailboat under spinnaker and IBM wanted to use it on the cover of their local directory. I signed the form and sent it back asking only that they send me a copy of the cover to see what it looked like.

Turns out, the directory was already printed and set for distribution when someone asked if I had OKed the photo. (I was recognizable in the shot.) They tracked me down to get the release so they didn't have to reprint it.
 
F01LA said:
You may think that the photo is a throwaway, but the fact that a major publication used it shows that it has considerable value. Look at the other photos in the publication; Many of them cost lots of $$$ to obtain.

"Acknowledgement" is not good enough when using a photo without permission (fair use excepted). If I heard you play a song you wrote, and I stole it and made a successful single out of it, would it be enough for me to say "Oh by the way, thanks Gary!" at every concert?

Here's a long watch, but interesting. Short version: Five figure payouts are not unusual in cases of stolen photos. Companies need to respect copyright.


I'm not saying a major lawsuit is the appropriate action here, but this is a big deal that the publication needs to know about. As an occasional content creator myself, I try to respect copyright and make sure that others respect mine. The myth that something is free or can be used with credit just because it's on the Internet unfortunately continues to persist ("Look at all the exposure you're getting!").
Click to expand...
Twenty or thirty years ago, a given picture may have required a pro and expensive equipment and talent to produce. Now high quality cameras are cheap, and people shoot like the proverbial room full of monkeys with typewriters: eventually, something good will come up. So the price of images has gone down, not up. And "considerable value" may be a couple of hundred bucks. One must choose their battles.
 
So easy even a monkey could do it:

A photographer left a camera laying out, a monkey grabbed it and took a selfie.

Who owns the copyright?

The photographer says he does.

The magazine that published the photo says nobody does.

PETA says the monkey does.

The US Copyright Office says "only works created by a human can be copyrighted under United States law, which excludes photographs and artwork created by animals or by machines without human intervention".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute

800px-Macaca_nigra_self-portrait_large.jpg
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Twenty or thirty years ago, a given picture may have required a pro and expensive equipment and talent to produce. Now high quality cameras are cheap, and people shoot like the proverbial room full of monkeys with typewriters: eventually, something good will come up. So the price of images has gone down, not up. And "considerable value" may be a couple of hundred bucks. One must choose their battles.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The cost of the equipment is not now nor was it ever much of an issue. The things that have driven the prices down is a much bigger and more competitive marketplace that the Internet provides even for those who want to pay for things rather than stealing them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top