Sometimes the bad guys win - life isn't fair.
I won't be changing anything from my end - nor will I be loosing any sleep over it.
This kind of thing has been hashed out here a few times already, and the closest to a conclusion was:
'the only solution to prevent theft is to keep your work off the internet'. And that is a bit counterproductive...
In this case, Samsung can't do all that much beyond removing the image, it seems: they aren't the copyright holders.
And the copyright holder is the one that has to take action (notwithstanding what some companies are trying to do wrt ISPs' duties...)
do you think they might develop a way of marking a combination of pixels in a unique way that can identify the author. Is this a daft idea?
The pace of modern news is one of the reasons image theft is so widespread. How many stories are read more than a few days after they're posted? Since it usually takes at least that long to become aware of a theft, and generally far longer to deal with it, the thief has essentially gotten all they wanted from the shot by the time it's taken down. The best you can usually hope for is removal of the image, and informing the offender, who either claims, or actually doesn't know any better, of your rights and the potential consequences.
Also, is the use in news items detrimental to the owner (financially or otherwise), and could it be fair use (where that doctrine is followed)? There are situations where it is allowed to use a protected image w/o getting permission of the copyright holder.
You would be amazed at how often people claim ignorance, and from which publications. Maybe it's mostly an American phenomenon.Originally Posted by revi
When I've pursued these cases, I don't do it with fiscal gain or reparations in mind. I'm just trying to stop the publisher from wholesale ripoffs. Shame and future deterrence is my goal, not reparations.Originally Posted by revi
Fair use is largely BS. It only exists where the image's creator grants it, and 99% of the time, it only applies to educational and non-profit uses. Modification (including, hypothetically, use on a book cover with overlaid text) is also generally prohibited. Best you could do in that case is to copy the author's work word-for-word, publish and sell it in France under your name, and claim fair use. While I'm not actually suggesting that, it's indistinguishable from stealing your photo for the cover.Originally Posted by revi
Colin hit on the modern legal reality of photography. We're going to get our stuff ripped off. Beyond objecting and informing the general public, there's not a whole lot most of us can do.
Journalistic use seems also covered.When I've pursued these cases, I don't do it with fiscal gain or reparations in mind. I'm just trying to stop the publisher from wholesale ripoffs. Shame and future deterrence is my goal, not reparations.
Fair use is largely BS. It only exists where the image's creator grants it, and 99% of the time, it only applies to educational and non-profit uses.
I agree and both are commercial, for profit uses that are rarely (if ever) covered under fair use. And both are 'long-term' uses, not what you cited as an example.Modification (including, hypothetically, use on a book cover with overlaid text) is also generally prohibited. Best you could do in that case is to copy the author's work word-for-word, publish and sell it in France under your name, and claim fair use. While I'm not actually suggesting that, it's indistinguishable from stealing your photo for the cover.
Exactly, it's either not possible to do anything effective, or not worth the effort and money you have to sink in it.Colin hit on the modern legal reality of photography. We're going to get our stuff ripped off. Beyond objecting and informing the general public, there's not a whole lot most of us can do.
But the example you gave (use in news) is one where the actual damages to the photographer seem minimal to me. And journalistic use is exactly one that is often covered by fair use in the USA and in France... (at least that's what I understood from a quick Google on 'copyright photography "fair use" ')
That does not mean that the user is allowed to do whatever (s)he wants even when it. In all cases attribution should/must be made and modification is rarely allowed w/o permission (under French law).
So yes, complaining when photos get ripped off is about all we can do, and we should do it, but we'll also have to accept that there are situations where such a use is legally allowed with or without permission. That's the flip side of the coin: we expect the users of the images to know and respect our rights, so we have to know and respect theirs...
Last edited by revi; 5th September 2013 at 03:15 PM. Reason: corrected quoting
The big question in my opinion is if an amateur photographer should be concerned about “intellectual property” being published?
Should we as amateurs not feel proud if an image captured by us is published?
I will be very proud if an image of mine is published, as long as the publisher acknowledges the photographer and does not use the image for commercial gain.
I've recently made the decision to start adding a signature on my images like this.
I haven't done it before because I don't particularly like the end result but I'm so fed up of chasing people down who say they "didn't know who the owner was" because they took it from Google and didn't bother to follow the link.
The final straw was having to tell the National Trust to take one of my pictures down from an advert recently.
Wayland, your photo is just as impressive if I hide your signature below the bottom of my screen. Very nice.
I think most of the thieves are part of what the internet has bred somewhat in all of us. Primarily impersonal and somewhat lazy. What is sometimes said on the internet could earn you a broken face if said in person. Logos and watermarks plastered across photographs can be removed but the number of criminals capable of doing it drops as the required effort goes up. Removing exif or other identifying data is also doable but again, the number of people who know how to do it goes down. Also included in that lazy category is the publishers employees who came up through the same internet age and who are too lazy to verify their sources. Speedy and easy but a disservice to their clients.
As with any criminal, the potential prize is balanced against the risk. The harder you can make it to steal the more purposeful the theft and the less likely anyone would be able to claim ignorance. Those of us who don't understand your problem probably don't have anything worth taking, really. Or maybe flattered if someone actually did. Professionals whose work appeals to many more than an immediate client have a whole set of problems I don't think the rest of us can comprehend. I'm hopefully working towards that level where I can.
The other factor is that the deliberate removal of "protection" on an image (and that would include a signature) violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act which gives you a better tool for prosecution in the colonies as I understand it.