Photo copyright issues

[winterbournecm]

Hi I'm not sure if this topic is allowed within the forum rules, apologies in advance if not suitable. A number od photographers have been enraged by the ripping off of their work by some individuals. One lives in Ivybridge and has been water marking other people's work as his own.

 

Here are some links on Facebook.

 

https://www.facebook.com/crookyj/photos?pnref=lhc

 

This image was taken by a NR colleague officially, definitely not the person who has water marked his as his own.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=864477943620042&set=pb.100001735334239.-2207520000.1432639443.&type=3&theater

 

I have mentioned the matter to officialdom, and a "senior" NR & RM Webber is also following the matter. Does anyone have any advice on how to deal with such an issue? Members of the Cornwall Railway Society and local Devon & Cornwall photographers are extremely upset by his antics. 

 

Here is one of my images he has passed off as his. This is not a location the public can get to.

 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=846169802117523&set=pb.100001735334239.-2207520000.1432639642.&type=3&theater

 

And here is my original:

 

The images are all facebook ones, so apologies if you cant access them. 

[Andy Y]

My advice would be that any individual copyright holder should write to him (even if it is through the medium he's used to publish any material such as Facebook) and initially advise that they are formally requesting him to cease and desist, remove any copied material with immediate effect, give a reasonable timescale for the person to act e.g. one week and advise that if there's is any continued publication beyond that date that a charge of £50 (or whatever you fancy!) would be applied for each image or every instance of publication. Advise that failure to comply will result in civil proceedings being started.

 

It's the threat of the charge per image which normally does the trick.

[Glorious NSE]

You might also threaten to report him to Facebook, a ban from FB would be a serious hit if he's heavily into social media, so it's a threat that might work.

Here's their TOS - section 5 refers:
https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms

And if you need to follow through with that threat:
https://www.facebook.com/help/249141925204375
 

[EddieB]

...by name and nature perhaps?

 

Are you absolutely sure that these aren't the watermarkers own work? Your picture of stored 60s at St Blazey is from a different viewpoint, has a different leading locomotive and must have been taken on a different occasion.

[MarkSG]

At least as far as Facebook is concerned, there is a mechanism to report it. Here's the link:

 

https://www.facebook.com/help/contact/208282075858952

[Torper]

Are you absolutely sure that these aren't the watermarkers own work? Your picture of stored 60s at St Blazey is from a different viewpoint, has a different leading locomotive and must have been taken on a different occasion.

 

I do hope for his own sake that the OP is right.  If he isn't, his statements might well be construed as libellous.

 

DT

[The Stationmaster]

I do note with one or two of the pictures that they would appear to have been taken not only well inside the boundary fence but in one case actually standing on or very close to track.  Unless he had proper written permission to be there, and to take photos for publication, he would appear to be - how shall I put it - not exactly in an entirely secure position legally.

[MarkSG]

I do note with one or two of the pictures that they would appear to have been taken not only well inside the boundary fence but in one case actually standing on or very close to track.  Unless he had proper written permission to be there, and to take photos for publication, he would appear to be - how shall I put it - not exactly in an entirely secure position legally.

 

That's not really relevant to the copyright issue. Whether you have permission to be there or not, you still own the copyright in your photos. But it may certainly have implications for trespass, and possibly a criminal offence.

[Froxfield2012]

Copyright law is a difficult area anyway, isn't it.  If the pirated image isn't being used for gain, then the likelihood of substantial damages would be unlikely, I would think.  By the same token, the monetary damage the photographer is going to suffer in respect of the average railway photograph is also pretty limited.  The commercial value of a single image use is not likely to be more than a few pounds. 

 

All those of us that have websites with railway images have to be a bit sanguine about piracy.  I watermark, restrict "right click" download and the quality of the image available for screen capture but in the end little can be done to stop people "stealing" an image.  If someone wants the full definition version then I hope that they will pay.  Commercial magazines certainly should (and in my experience do) pay a small fee for use.  If I were to spot an image being used by a commercial publication, the chances are that someone else had mis-represented the image to the publication and I would talk first to the publishers in question.  I bet they would want to take up the issue with their supplier.  As to value, in the end, there are a lot of good images out there and I suspect the supply exceeds demand!

 

For those reasons, I have always been happy to put relatively low resolution images up here if I think it might be helpful.  Of course, it is always nice if someone acknowledges the source of an image they want to use!

 

Frankly chaps, my stuff is no Maurice Earley or Eric Treacy masterpiece and therefore I try to keep things in proportion.  Theft is an annoyance but I get the feeling if I get wound up about it, the thing I end up damaging is  my own blood pressure. 

 

Richard

[Reorte]

As for the access issue, note the OP says one of them was taken by a "NR colleague", which suggests (although obviously isn't proof) that he might also be NR and on validly on location. At any rate I feel that's enough for us to give him the benefit of doubt as much as I would anyone else who says that their pictures were taken from non-public locations with appropriate permissions.

[MarkSG]

As a rule of thumb, you can charge standard NUJ freelance photographer rates and the courts will enforce that if necessary. But it's not often worth the effort for typical non-commercial infringement.

 

As a general rule I publish my photos under a CC-BY-SA licence, meaning that anyone can use them for free so long as they a) don't use them commercially and b) credit me if they do use them. I'd still charge for commercial use, and that licence enables me to do so.

 

I dislike visible watermarking of images. It seems to me to go against the point of putting them on display in the first place. I've gone to the effort of creating a nice image, so why spoil it by sticking a splodge of text or whatever on it? Maybe a small watermark in the corner is OK, but I get rather irritated with people who have such a strong sense of self-importance that they think I'll appreciate one of their photos even though it's got a watermark right across the main subject! And therein lies the issue: if the watermark is sufficiently unobtrusive that it doesn't spoil the photo, it can easily be removed by cropping. But if it can't be removed by cropping without losing too much of the subject, then it's spoiling the photo. You can't have it both ways.

 

Going back to the original subject, though, what annoys me far more than simple copyright infringement (even commercial infringement) is plagiarism - that is, taking someone else's work and falsely presenting it as your own. Copyright infringement is essentially a legal and contractual issue, but plagiarism is a moral one. And what makes that even worse is where someone takes photos that are clearly not their own (especially old photos on which copyright has expired) and then sticks their own watermark on them before publishing them on the web. That's not merely plagiarism, it's vandalism.

[Kenton]

 

Are you absolutely sure that these aren't the watermarkers own work?

Be absolutely sure you can prove that the images are a rip off before you attempt any prosecution. Watermarks and exif data are very easy to add and remove, image manipulation software is very sophisticated these days and considerable fine distortion and "improvement" can be added to an image. You will be on stronger ground if you have a negative (impossible with digital) but if the "copier" can also produce evidence you can expect considerable costs in a counter-claim (how would you like to be falsely accused?). Digital images can be forensically analysed - but it will cost (potentially recoverable).

 

At the end of the day any judgement will be made on the basis of your loss and his gain from publishing. Although a weak defence is that he can show that he is simply republishing images already free (unattributed) on the internet it will be mitigating. Finally if he has made no material gain and has no financial substance, your victory will be hollow.

 

Think long and hard before you threaten anyone, even if you are in the right. Often the best course of action is a polite approach and a reasonable charge for publishing. Don't expect to get very far with Facebook or any other company hosting the images. They can afford better lawyers, so again the best approach s one of a "concerned party" wishing to clear up a misunderstanding. They will not disclose personal details of their members (as doing this would open the to much more serious data protection claims). So hopefully you have the identity and address of this person through other means?

 

It IS wrong - but in the scheme of things how wrong?

[BlackRat]

I'm no expert but.......having spent many hours reviewing scene photographs, your image, and the second image appear to be taken from two different positions and angles, looking at the view and the lights in the background.

 

Also,in your pic, there seems to be 3 loco's in front of the 'blue' one, but in his I can only make out 2?

[reevesthecat]

I'm no expert but.......having spent many hours reviewing scene photographs, your image, and the second image appear to be taken from two different positions and angles, looking at the view and the lights in the background.

Also,in your pic, there seems to be 3 loco's in front of the 'blue' one, but in his I can only make out 2?

Also the 60 at the front has a different running number.

Mark

[The Stationmaster]

That's not really relevant to the copyright issue. Whether you have permission to be there or not, you still own the copyright in your photos. But it may certainly have implications for trespass, and possibly a criminal offence.

It might also help to prove who took the photo.  If the photographer and no right to be there and those in orange gear saw no one there it could be a material point.

[Dazzler Fan]

+

The situation has become ridiculous on older photographs
- the same picture can be accompanied by different claims

in each publication of it.

[DavidH]

There can be valid reasons for that, however. Publishers who buy in images from agencies have only what the agency tell them to go on - if the agency's information is inaccurate, it can result in different claims each time. Authors of works may not have full records of what they are publishing, or may have lost the information during the writing of the book, and are guessing, even if that's an informed guess. Sometimes the right to sell a photo/image may have been sold, or licenced, to multiple parties - and can appear to have multiple ownership (especially if it's an old image). And sometimes people just make a plain honest mistake.

 

It is frustrating indeed ... and explains why publishers I work for usually put in a disclaimer in books to the effect that "every attempt has been made to contact copyright holders [but if information is inaccurate please contact them]" or something like that.

 

Going back to the OP ... is he making money on them? I know that's not entirely the point, but if he's not selling them on as his work, it strikes me as creating lot of stress for yourself, for little reward, especially if you take the claims route. And looking at the class 60s photos, they are quite obviously two different images, so as others have said, are you sure?

[MarkSG]

Going back to the OP ... is he making money on them? I know that's not entirely the point, but if he's not selling them on as his work, it strikes me as creating lot of stress for yourself, for little reward, especially if you take the claims route. 

 

I can't speak for the OP, but from my perspective I don't have any real problem with someone sticking one of my photos on Facebook, or some other photo gallery, with a comment to the effect of "Here's a great photo that I found on the Internet". I would, however, be distinctly miffed if they said "Here's a great photo that I took". And I'd be even more miffed if they were passing it off as their own work and attempting to make money out of it. I'd almost certainly be disgruntled enough to do something about it in that case.

 

(I'd also be somewhat miffed if someone put one of my photos on the web with the comment "Look at this awful photo I found". But that would be for a very different reason to the copyright issue  )

[Andy Reichert]

I'm wondering if the issue of copyright is being confused with "subject similarity" here. There is no protection for the latter, unless one is photographing someone else's "work of art".

[Kenton]

 

There is no protection for the latter, unless one is photographing someone else's "work of art".

No protection there either if the art is in a public place or both photographers have requested permission (and been granted it) eg. photographing layouts at an exhibition. Both photographers own the copyright of their own photographs even if they were standing at the exact same spot using the same digital camera with the same settings and scratched lens

[BoD]

Unless you've posted the wrong image by mistake I can't see how you can possibly claim that he is passing off one of your images as his own.

[MarkSG]

Unless you've posted the wrong image by mistake I can't see how you can possibly claim that he is passing off one of your images as his own.

 

On the other hand, the first one (of the 08 at the head of an HST) does appear to be identical to one on this page, credited to a different person:

 

http://www.cornwallrailwaysociety.org.uk/diesel-railtours-2014-to-present-day.html

 

(Warning: horrendously image-heavy page, will take ages to load even on a fast connection)

 

Several other images in that Facebook album also appear on that page, albeit without a watermark and with a credit to a different person. So it does look as though the OP's complaint is generally substantiated, although the images of the stored 60s are definitely not the same - I think that may be a genuine mistake on his part, which if so doesn't affect the truth of the original allegation. It does mean he needs to be more careful if he wants to get Facebook to take action over it, though. 

[MarkSG]

Further note: The original of the stored 60s is actually here on RMweb, in a post by the OP:

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/51931-anything-interesting-this-month/page-3

 

So it does look like the Facebook one is a rip-off of his, he just posted the wrong one for comparison in this thread.

[winterbournecm]

Yes - the image of the 60 with the blinds drawn down is my own, I realise this is the other loco. It was to illustrate he has no business in the yard really. I am 100% correct however, that he is ripping off images, and no doubt others will add to the thread at some point. 

[BlackRat]

That's not really what you said in your opening comments........you might want this thread quarantined.