eriksen Posted January 3, 2021 Share Posted January 3, 2021 This picture is on Wikipedia, posted with this info: I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fantoft_stavkirke_2_korigert.jpg Is this a legal action? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
losdemas Posted January 4, 2021 Share Posted January 4, 2021 Difficult one, but I'd say not. I'd record all details, get it removed promptly, then report the user to Wikipedia. I notice that the link you provide lists the photographer page as 'not yet created'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted January 4, 2021 Share Posted January 4, 2021 (edited) The question arises- where did they get it at full size? Has it ever been licensed legitimately, from Alamy or elsewhere? Or have you published it elsewhere yourself? Edited January 4, 2021 by spacecadet 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cal Posted January 4, 2021 Share Posted January 4, 2021 Just now, spacecadet said: The question arises- where did they get it at full size? Has it been licensed legitimately? Was about to say the same. It's been bought and then misused would be my thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted January 4, 2021 Share Posted January 4, 2021 Yeah! I just noticed there is no watermark. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted January 4, 2021 Share Posted January 4, 2021 53 minutes ago, spacecadet said: The question arises- where did they get it at full size? Has it ever been licensed legitimately, from Alamy or elsewhere? Or have you published it elsewhere yourself? PU or presentation sale maybe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted January 4, 2021 Share Posted January 4, 2021 So Jaru-er is not you, Jan Rune Eriksen. Hm. Remarkably the other image the uploader to Wikipedia has posted, is also one of yours. The image is being used here: https://www.wearethepit.com/2020/08/10-things-lords-of-chaos-got-right-and-wrong-about-black-metal/ https://pl.qaz.wiki/wiki/Fantoft_Stave_Church wim 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted January 4, 2021 Share Posted January 4, 2021 (edited) 18 minutes ago, wiskerke said: So Jaru-er is not you, Jan Rune Eriksen. Hm. Remarkably the other image the uploader to Wikipedia has posted, is also one of yours. The image is being used here: https://www.wearethepit.com/2020/08/10-things-lords-of-chaos-got-right-and-wrong-about-black-metal/ https://pl.qaz.wiki/wiki/Fantoft_Stave_Church wim Ah, missed that. It's posted full-size, downloadable, on flickr under his name. So are his other images. It is set to all rights reserved. Edited January 4, 2021 by spacecadet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MizBrown Posted January 4, 2021 Share Posted January 4, 2021 1 hour ago, spacecadet said: Ah, missed that. It's posted full-size, downloadable, on flickr under his name. So are his other images. It is set to all rights reserved. Moral of this story is don't upload first rate photos to social media, including to Flickr. I closed my account a few months ago. His Flickr photostream is very nice. Report this to Wikipedia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cal Posted January 4, 2021 Share Posted January 4, 2021 28 minutes ago, MizBrown said: Moral of this story is don't upload first rate photos to social media, including to Flickr. I closed my account a few months ago. His Flickr photostream is very nice. Report this to Wikipedia. Nothing wrong with uploading first-rate pics - I use my SM to show my best work (and sometimes the funny outtakes) but I always, always downsize quite considerably and add a watermark, which serves two purposes - it's your brand and it helps make theft of the image harder. Although Alamy's exclusive contract generously allows you to upload to SM and sell on your own POD site, I think it comes under due diligence to at least take these precautions. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MizBrown Posted January 5, 2021 Share Posted January 5, 2021 7 hours ago, Cal said: I always, always downsize quite considerably and add a watermark, which serves two purposes - it's your brand and it helps make theft of the image harder. And that's another way to handle it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russell Posted January 5, 2021 Share Posted January 5, 2021 13 hours ago, wiskerke said: https://pl.qaz.wiki/wiki/Fantoft_Stave_Church Be careful with this link folks. My virus checker doesn't like it and has blocked it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiskerke Posted January 5, 2021 Share Posted January 5, 2021 2 hours ago, Russell said: Be careful with this link folks. My virus checker doesn't like it and has blocked it. I have uBlock Origin. For Chrome; Firefox. Cannot recommend it enough. There's even a trick to halt ads on Youtube, wim 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eriksen Posted January 6, 2021 Author Share Posted January 6, 2021 My sale history shows that this photo has been sold. If it is the buyer who has posted the picture on Wikipedia, will it then be a legal action? Here is a copy of the sale history for this picture: 2AH962X fantoft stavkirke 2 korigert jan rune eriksen 17 August 2020 Royalty-free 69 MB 6000 x 4000 pixels 2 MB compressed Image use: Consumer goods Details of use: Calendar Print run: up to 2,500 Placement: Inside Duration: 1 year Country: Norway $ 46.18 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inchiquin Posted January 6, 2021 Share Posted January 6, 2021 If you're saying that the Wikipedia user Jaru-eri is not you, then it looks as though someone else is trying to impersonate you, which would almost certainly be illegal. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted January 6, 2021 Share Posted January 6, 2021 6 hours ago, eriksen said: My sale history shows that this photo has been sold. If it is the buyer who has posted the picture on Wikipedia, will it then be a legal action? Here is a copy of the sale history for this picture: 2AH962X fantoft stavkirke 2 korigert jan rune eriksen 17 August 2020 Royalty-free 69 MB 6000 x 4000 pixels 2 MB compressed Image use: Consumer goods Details of use: Calendar Print run: up to 2,500 Placement: Inside Duration: 1 year Country: Norway $ 46.18 That licence wouldn't cover use on Wikipedia no. Get a DCMA notice to Wikipedia pronto. Are you being impersonated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eriksen Posted January 6, 2021 Author Share Posted January 6, 2021 1 hour ago, Inchiquin said: If you're saying that the Wikipedia user Jaru-eri is not you, then it looks as though someone else is trying to impersonate you, which would almost certainly be illegal. Alan I posted the picture in Wikipedia as a supplement to the page, but does that mean that the picture now is a public domain and is Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International a part of Wikipedia which has right to share this picture to everyone? I also posted a picture of Gamlehaugen and that picture is also on Wikimedia now. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=jaru+eri&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current={}&ns0=1&ns6=1&ns12=1&ns14=1&ns100=1&ns106=1#/media/File:Gamlehaugen_7_+_lum_newest.tif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted January 6, 2021 Share Posted January 6, 2021 (edited) If you posted the image on Wihipedia yourself, then you have automatically made it available under a CC licence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Copyright_and_licensing "Wikipedia encourages users to upload their own images. All user-created images must be licensed under a free license". So you have effectively sabotaged your market for these images on Alamy because no-one need ever pay for them. Edited January 6, 2021 by spacecadet 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eriksen Posted January 6, 2021 Author Share Posted January 6, 2021 6 minutes ago, spacecadet said: If you posted the image on Wihipedia yourself, then you have automatically made it available under a CC licence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Copyright_and_licensing "Wikipedia encourages users to upload their own images. All user-created images must be licensed under a free license". So you have effectively sabotaged your market for these images on Alamy because no-one need ever pay for them. OK! I understand. But are there any ways to remove them in order to stop the free license for these pictures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted January 6, 2021 Share Posted January 6, 2021 Just now, eriksen said: OK! I understand. But are there any ways to remove them in order to stop the free license for these pictures? I assume there's a deletion process for Wikipedia but I don't know what it is. It wouldn't be retrospective, so you can't stop anyone who has already copied it. You probably can't have the image as exclusive on Alamy, either. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MizBrown Posted January 6, 2021 Share Posted January 6, 2021 https://smallbiztrends.com/2015/03/using-creative-commons.html You've given them a Creative Commons license to the photograph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now