Jill Morgan Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 I was checking out a site for selling my custom dog collars, and came across a listing for an item that sells things with impinted photos and pictures. In their description they state that: **NOTICE** All items where created with pictures from the internet. The internet is considered to be a public domain, however If you feel we are infringing on your copyrighted pictures please email us and we will remove the listing immediatly and will not relist the item. The misspellings are theirs, not mine. Their stuff is all Disney logos and stuff like that, but obviously they know they are breaking the law, otherwise they would not even mention infringing on copyright or removing the item. Do they really think this will prevent someone (if so motivated) for suing them for selling items wihtout a licence fee? Do they think this statement protects them somehow? Jill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulstw Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 My car sits in the public domain, so does that mean anyone can just take it? lol They are basically saying that, we're going to use any image we like but if you catch us we'll take it away after we've probably made a few quid on the merch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Morgan Posted April 4, 2014 Author Share Posted April 4, 2014 I looked into some licencing fees for the NHL for my dog bandanas as many people seem to want the team logos on them. When I checked, the cheapest fee was $25,000 per year, Some companies are extremely protective of their logos and intellectual property, so continuing to market products like this may some day put this person in a court of law, with companies wanting backdated fees for every year they have been selling these products online. I'm sure there are many people out there stealing photos to put on greeting cards and selling them. I may browse around out of curiosity. Jill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dyn Llun Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 Sadly, as has been discussed here many times, copyright theft is rife. Ignorance of the law, even if there is any, is no excuse. Many years ago I was on an advisory committee that lobbied parliament and made recommendations which eventually led to the change of the old copyright act. So, I have always been a campaigner and have taken a zero tolerance attitude. I discovered one of my photographs being used without permission a few years ago on one of those large, ornate, town centre information panels put up by the local authority. I found the graphics company that stole my work and as well as a financial settlement, I told them to remove my photograph, as it wasn't one that I deemed suitable for such a use and would never have given permission for that particular application. (Not a stock photo). They had to re-do the whole, large, expensive sign. The local authority also cancelled their contract due to the embarrassment and inconvenience caused. A very, very costly mistake for that company. Bet they don't do it again though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ann Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 Responding to the Topic: I know my photos are NOT in the public domain. And even though you're reading this on the internet, it actually IS true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 http://www.publicdomainsherpa.com/10-misconceptions-about-the-public-domain.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Morgan Posted April 4, 2014 Author Share Posted April 4, 2014 It still does amaze me how many people think that if google can find it, it must be free to use. Even my sister, who is a very intelligent person, was surprised when I told her just cause you can do an image search on google, doesn't mean the images are free to use. She, like many, had assumed otherwise. We had quite a lively discussion, She also thought that it would be wrong for a newspaper to use someone's photo, but not wrong for a blogger. I asked her what was the difference. Are there varying degrees to the law? Her argument was that papers were commercial, but blogs weren't. Ah I said, but many successful bloggers sell ad space on their blogs and earn money from google adwords. If they can earn money from their words, why shouldn't the photographer earn money for their photo. That is when it finally clicked I think. I just think many people think they are a small potato, so no-one will bother with them, that people and companies really only chase major infringers. They are betting on it. Jill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 I have been hanging fire on pursuing some infringers but I am putting together a workflow for pursuing them through the new IPR channel; of the Small Claims Court here in the UK. The aim is to make it as painless for me and minimise the time I need to spend pursuing them; maximise the return on my effort. We should all pursue copyright as a matter of course, pour encourager les autres. Especially here in the UK it should be relatively straightforward as we have the Small Claims Court even if we cannot purse exemplary or punitive damages. It seems getting a court judgement against them is the only way many people will learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 I don't have my own Website anymore, and I never place images on sites like Flickr, so I don't think I need to spend sleepless nights worrying about image theft. I do have a blog (which I've never made a penny on), but I illustrate the posts with my own watermarked Alamy images. I think there's only one small image of a diver that I had in iPhoto that's not watermarked. My blog does not have a commercial theme, not really about cameras and such; they are mostly memoir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 At present it appears I have been hanging fire on pursuing some infringers but I am putting together a workflow for pursuing them through the new IPR channel; of the Small Claims Court here in the UK. The aim is to make it as painless for me and minimise the time I need to spend pursuing them; maximise the return on my effort. We should all pursue copyright as a matter of course, pour encourager les autres. Especially here in the UK it should be relatively straightforward as we have the Small Claims Court even if we cannot purse exemplary or punitive damages. It seems getting a court judgement against them is the only way many people will learn. At the moment it appears you can only issue claims in person in London. No problem for me, but it would be handy if you could use the online process Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linda Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 Skype court. That's what is needed. Pointless to pursue a claim for $1500-5000 if you have to fly to another country to do it! L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 At present it appears I have been hanging fire on pursuing some infringers but I am putting together a workflow for pursuing them through the new IPR channel; of the Small Claims Court here in the UK. The aim is to make it as painless for me and minimise the time I need to spend pursuing them; maximise the return on my effort. We should all pursue copyright as a matter of course, pour encourager les autres. Especially here in the UK it should be relatively straightforward as we have the Small Claims Court even if we cannot purse exemplary or punitive damages. It seems getting a court judgement against them is the only way many people will learn. At the moment it appears you can only issue claims in person in London. No problem for me, but it would be handy if you could use the online process Ah, that could be a nuisance, I will have to look at the documentation, I had not got down into the weeds of the IPR route. Was aware of the details of the online small claims court and hoped it was the same. Problem is a train ticket to London is between £80 and £160 for me; that could be at least two successful claims (no punitive damages), rather pushes up the cost and risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 I don't have my own Website anymore, and I never place images on sites like Flickr, so I don't think I need to spend sleepless nights worrying about image theft. I do have a blog (which I've never made a penny on), but I illustrate the posts with my own watermarked Alamy images. I think there's only one small image of a diver that I had in iPhoto that's not watermarked. My blog does not have a commercial theme, not really about cameras and such; they are mostly memoir. Problem is all my thefts are from legitimate uses in online newspaper websites etc. In fact it seems for every news pic I get published I get 2-3 or more thefts. Its not from Alamy usage, not had any for longer than I care to think about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 At present it appears I have been hanging fire on pursuing some infringers but I am putting together a workflow for pursuing them through the new IPR channel; of the Small Claims Court here in the UK. The aim is to make it as painless for me and minimise the time I need to spend pursuing them; maximise the return on my effort. We should all pursue copyright as a matter of course, pour encourager les autres. Especially here in the UK it should be relatively straightforward as we have the Small Claims Court even if we cannot purse exemplary or punitive damages. It seems getting a court judgement against them is the only way many people will learn. At the moment it appears you can only issue claims in person in London. No problem for me, but it would be handy if you could use the online process Ah, that could be a nuisance, I will have to look at the documentation, I had not got down into the weeds of the IPR route. Was aware of the details of the online small claims court and hoped it was the same. Problem is a train ticket to London is between £80 and £160 for me; that could be at least two successful claims (no punitive damages), rather pushes up the cost and risk. Just looked it up, it's mentioned in the Hargreaves consultation. www.ipo.gov.uk/hargreaves-enforce-c4e-pcc-response.pdf 1.18. HMCTS have identified appropriate judicial resources which are anticipated will deal effectively with the expected early demand. This will be monitored closely. At least in the early stages following the introduction of the track, IP claims will not be filed through the MCOL system. You could phone up though, I can't see why it can't be done by post. As to value, I wouldn't be bothering with less than a few hundred, whatever the use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 It still does amaze me how many people think that if google can find it, it must be free to use. Even my sister, who is a very intelligent person, was surprised when I told her just cause you can do an image search on google, doesn't mean the images are free to use. She, like many, had assumed otherwise. We had quite a lively discussion, She also thought that it would be wrong for a newspaper to use someone's photo, but not wrong for a blogger. I asked her what was the difference. Are there varying degrees to the law? Her argument was that papers were commercial, but blogs weren't. Ah I said, but many successful bloggers sell ad space on their blogs and earn money from google adwords. If they can earn money from their words, why shouldn't the photographer earn money for their photo. That is when it finally clicked I think. I just think many people think they are a small potato, so no-one will bother with them, that people and companies really only chase major infringers. They are betting on it. Jill I think most people feel the same way as your sister does. I have people e-mailing me through my PhotoShelter website asking me how they can download pictures. They seem genuinely taken aback when I explain that they would have to pay in order to do so. Blog use of photos is a bit of a grey area. I had Google AdSense on several travel-related blogs, and it took me the better part of ten years to reach the $100 payout threshold. I'm not sure that I would consider that a "commercial" venture. However, as you say, there are financially successful bloggers. But most people blog for love, not money. Alamy's Novel Use scheme was in part an attempt to address this market. But it didn't quite work out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 At present it appears I have been hanging fire on pursuing some infringers but I am putting together a workflow for pursuing them through the new IPR channel; of the Small Claims Court here in the UK. The aim is to make it as painless for me and minimise the time I need to spend pursuing them; maximise the return on my effort. We should all pursue copyright as a matter of course, pour encourager les autres. Especially here in the UK it should be relatively straightforward as we have the Small Claims Court even if we cannot purse exemplary or punitive damages. It seems getting a court judgement against them is the only way many people will learn. At the moment it appears you can only issue claims in person in London. No problem for me, but it would be handy if you could use the online process Ah, that could be a nuisance, I will have to look at the documentation, I had not got down into the weeds of the IPR route. Was aware of the details of the online small claims court and hoped it was the same. Problem is a train ticket to London is between £80 and £160 for me; that could be at least two successful claims (no punitive damages), rather pushes up the cost and risk. Just looked it up, it's mentioned in the Hargreaves consultation. www.ipo.gov.uk/hargreaves-enforce-c4e-pcc-response.pdf 1.18. HMCTS have identified appropriate judicial resources which are anticipated will deal effectively with the expected early demand. This will be monitored closely. At least in the early stages following the introduction of the track, IP claims will not be filed through the MCOL system. You could phone up though, I can't see why it can't be done by post. As to value, I wouldn't be bothering with less than a few hundred, whatever the use. Thanks, I'll explore it further and I must get in touch with an IPR lawyer acquaintance, He may be about to retire so might be up for a modest new venture! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Rooney Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 "I think most people feel the same way as your sister does. I have people e-mailing me through my PhotoShelter website asking me how they can download pictures. They seem genuinely taken aback when I explain that they would have to pay in order to do so. Blog use of photos is a bit of a grey area. I had Google AdSense on several travel-related blogs, and it took me the better part of ten years to reach the $100 payout threshold. I'm not sure that I would consider that a "commercial" venture. However, as you say, there are financially successful bloggers. But most people blog for love, not money. Alamy's Novel Use scheme was in part an attempt to address this market. But it didn't quite work out." -- John I've had some AdSense on my blog, but is it worth the time to count up the pennies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MariaJ Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 It still does amaze me how many people think that if google can find it, it must be free to use. Even my sister, who is a very intelligent person, was surprised when I told her just cause you can do an image search on google, doesn't mean the images are free to use. She, like many, had assumed otherwise. I recently had a similar discussion with one of my friends, also a smart and educated woman. I had been talking about my stock photography work when she said "why would anyone pay for images when they're available for free through Google?" I set her straight but clearly the proper information needs to get out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 "I think most people feel the same way as your sister does. I have people e-mailing me through my PhotoShelter website asking me how they can download pictures. They seem genuinely taken aback when I explain that they would have to pay in order to do so. Blog use of photos is a bit of a grey area. I had Google AdSense on several travel-related blogs, and it took me the better part of ten years to reach the $100 payout threshold. I'm not sure that I would consider that a "commercial" venture. However, as you say, there are financially successful bloggers. But most people blog for love, not money. Alamy's Novel Use scheme was in part an attempt to address this market. But it didn't quite work out." -- John I've had some AdSense on my blog, but is it worth the time to count up the pennies? Probably not. I just waited until Google sent me a cheque. As mentioned, I had to wait almost a decade. I think mostly everyone on the planet is now immune to Google AdWords. I know I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted April 5, 2014 Share Posted April 5, 2014 My Adsense payment comes every couple of years. I could probably get it down to annually quite easily if I did more with my sites - which I am starting to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inchiquin Posted April 5, 2014 Share Posted April 5, 2014 I recently had a similar discussion with one of my friends, also a smart and educated woman. I had been talking about my stock photography work when she said "why would anyone pay for images when they're available for free through Google?" I set her straight but clearly the proper information needs to get out there. Unfortunately the problem is not just people who think images on Goggle are free, it's also the many people who willingly give their pics away for free. I post pics occasionally to a Facebook group and include a watermark, as I always do on the internet with any image that's more than small thumb size. I was asked why the watermark was there as it "spoiled the picture". When I explained why, several people were dismissive of my attempt to protect copyright and said that their pictures were free for anyone to use however they liked. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.