Please Don't Infringe On My Copyrighted Photos
By pyewacket
@pyewacket (43903)
United States
October 8, 2007 10:23pm CST
Okay I'm not accusing, I'm not mad, well, okay maybe a little...LOL
A little while ago, someone told me very happily that they took one of my photos that I had posted on a discussion and had downloaded it then placed it on one of those share a pic type websites...Fortunately when I checked it out, it turned out NOT to be my photo but something else.
Okay here's my beef a bit, and I wish to enlighten folks the world of photography a bit. Now for those who don't mind placing their photos on anyone of these share a pic type websites for just anyone to download,copy and share fine. Also many will think they will make thousands of dollars by having their photos on a micro stock photo site like iStockphoto, since all of these type of sites lure people to believe that they will earn mega bucks by uploading their photos at such a site.
While the digital world of photography has made photos more readily available to anyone, it has created a lot of problems. Number one, now anyone with a digital camera can be a "Photographer" and have their work recognized...uh, nice, but the drawback is that it has saturated the photo industry with images.
Now how these sites work, is that a client or anyone can download an image for a mere buck or two, and since they usually all use the royalty free concept, that means once that client or person has that photo, they can use it as many times as they wish without further compensation to the photographer. What does the photographer get for each "hit" or download of their photo? Usually about 25 cents and like I said the client can use that photo unlimited times without further compensation to the photographer. Does that seem fair? Sure doesn't to me.
Now I consider myself in the professional photographer category...I'm not a hobbiest and I'm certainly not an amateur...yes, I did have a "hiatus" from my work for many years for personal reasons, but from the years between 1980 to 1996 I was an actively published photographer and my work appeared on the covers of magazines, in newspapers, calendars, and even in books--and I was being paid the one-time use policy, and on average $100 per photo per usage...quite a difference from 25 cents.
Many of us "pro" photographers are up in arms against these share a pic or micro stock photo sites and in all honesty would like to see them go out of business....they have "cheapened" the world and art of photography, and yes, have made it darn hard for those of us who are trying to earn a living at it. You can view all the "warnings" of fellow photographer, Seth Resnick, of whom I've been in contact with for a variety of reasons, at his site...His warnings practically says if you use his photos without his permission will all but bust your balls..LOL--or at least sue the living daylights out of you. You can see his site here:
http://sethresnick.com
Now I know this person didn't mean anything by this and was innocent of the issues involved here, and like I said it turned out to be the wrong photo anyway, however, no one should download anyone's work without their permission.
Since I happen to have a few bucks hanging around, tomorrow I plan to download the software which will enable me to place a watermark on my photos, which will hamper anyone from lifting my photos without my permission and therefore infringing on my copyrights.
Now like I said, maybe this issue doesn't bother most people,but it sure as heck bothers me.
Does anyone else have the same concerns about their work--whether it'd be photos or even articles/short stories that are under their copyright, or is it just me?
7 people like this
14 responses
@polachicago (18716)
• United States
9 Oct 07
I don't sell my good pictures for nothing. I can sell my trash pictures, I have over 30000 images and my trash pictures that I will never use.
I am selling pictures by the book, directly to the agency.
@pyewacket (43903)
• United States
9 Oct 07
Which agency..just curious..I upload some of my photos to Photographers Direct which doesn't operate like the other stock agencies
1 person likes this
@polachicago (18716)
• United States
12 Oct 07
depends, I have a book with names and addresses, new book is publish every year with direct names, phone numbers and addresses... They are very selective, but at least you know upfront what kind of pictures they are looking for.
@thefortunes (2367)
• Netherlands
9 Oct 07
Hi Pye, I do understand your point - I really do. But personally I hate it when photos are ruined by the water mark of copy right on them, and so, I never do it myself. It is also because I am not really trying to earn from my own photos.
As to the sites where one can download it for $1 or $2, it's not true that the buyer can use it unlimited times. I have purchased about 20 images in the last year, and in their TOS it is written that the buyer may use it only once., and for each additional use they have to purchase an othert licence.
I purchase these usually for having headers for web sites made, and when I dont have anything suitable of my own photos.
As to the written stuff, yes, I desire that under each of my own articles there is my name, and if I find articles of my "stolen" and without my name on it I give a warning, and see to it that the site gets closed down when the owners do not reply, and do not either place my name with teh article, or take it away from there.
It sucks when your work is stolem, but i don't loose much time with checking around really, as it will ruin my day and my mood. Wish you to be able to protect your work without the watermarks though, as these really, really are too ugly and take away qualities of your work. The written stuff, suffices to place "By .........." and © 2007 next to your name, with it I feel that I am giving enough info about that it is copy righted.
TheFortunes
1 person likes this
@pyewacket (43903)
• United States
9 Oct 07
It really depends on the type sites you're talking about and of the rights involved...most are royalty free which does mean a person can download a photo for only a $1 or $2 without further compensation to the photographer. Then there are the rights managed which might be the one you're thinking of and yes might allow for payment if the photo is used more than once...but all in all do you still think it's right for a photographer to get only 25 cents for his work, for that is what he/she is paid for at these sites
Like I said I'm in contact with photographer Seth Resnick...on his website he also has his price list...this is the STANDARD price list for all professional photographers...not just something he made up
For instance:
For a cover photo on a magazine for 1/4 to full size of the cover and for a press run of the magazine of 100,000 to 500,000 issues is $1,000 dollars, one-time usage-like I said this is the standard going market price of photos...not just his.
You can see this one part of the list here.
http://www.d-65.com/photographersonly/consumerpricing.html
He lists a lot of other potential usages of photos including websites
Now do you know why I'm all fired up to create my own on-line photo business on par with his??? LOL
@pyewacket (43903)
• United States
9 Oct 07
Well most pro photographers won't upload their photos to places like that since they know the real value of their work...I upload images to Photographer's Direct which works an entirely different system...also most pro photographers will usually have their own websites...that's what I'm aiming for--I do have two websites but want to work on a more pro one like Seth Resnick's
@thefortunes (2367)
• Netherlands
9 Oct 07
Hi Pye, I only buy images from here: http://www.bigstockphoto.com
and here you could see the licence stuff
http://www.bigstockphoto.com/licensing-buyers.html
As to what I think about the $0.25 a shot.
I suppose all of the photographers are uploading there
just photos that they are unable to sell for more to
agencies. This way they still get something for their
photo, even if it is nothing much.
I dont think you can upload there someone else's photos
so people know what they are doing I think.
And sure, if you are able to get something going as the
photographer you are mentioning - Seth Resnick, simply great. But since you know how many simply make photos for the fun of it and are not PRO photographers, they dont mind to sell theirs for $0.10 to $0.20 on sites - and in a way are doing it too on MyLot, but than for $0.01 :)
TheFortunes
1 person likes this
@Lakota12 (42600)
• United States
9 Oct 07
Yup it is wrong to do that as for mine I wouldnt care for I dont do it for a living and I have 1000 s of pics some where here in this house.
But id you wanted to be paid 25 cents per pic you would have put it on that sight yourself!
and it states here no copy write pics to be uploaded or copied so where does some on eget off doing it am sure they didnt know just thought it was beautiful and did it.
Boy does seth have it on all pages about his copy write pics and I dont blame y'll fo r when you are piad that amount for a pic its a shame that some one else tries this kid of thing. Hope no one else does it again
And here I cant even upload my own pics to discussion and they cant figure out why!
1 person likes this
@pyewacket (43903)
• United States
9 Oct 07
Still haven't figured out why you can't upload photos..that's weird..have you emailed MyLot about it??
@GnosticGoddess (5626)
• United States
9 Oct 07
I don't like it either and I'm not a professional. If I have an exceptionally good photo I usually won't post it anywhere public.
I've had a friend ask me to use some of my photos and I told her sure put please put my name on them first. I trust her though :)
That's a really cool program. How much did it cost?
1 person likes this
@GnosticGoddess (5626)
• United States
10 Oct 07
That's true. At least the watermark will prevent it from happening in the future :)
@pyewacket (43903)
• United States
10 Oct 07
The problem is, if a photographer even has their own site to show off to clients they can "lift" them for their use..but I just downloaded software to put watermark copyright notices on my photos--now I have to redo my photos a bit to do that, then repost my images on my sites...
1 person likes this
@jayperiod (870)
• United States
13 Oct 07
It's for that very reason I don't usually post my photos here or at other share sites. If I am going to post it anywhere on the web, I put my copyright smack in the middle of the photo. If someone steals it, everyone will know it.
1 person likes this
@pyewacket (43903)
• United States
13 Oct 07
I just got a software program, iWatermark that will allow me to put my copyright on it
@worldwise1 (14885)
• United States
9 Oct 07
I understand what you mean, pyewacket. It must be a lot like people downloading music illegally. Nobody wants to have their work literally stolen from them. I would be kind of pi$$ed too. I just came from visiting the site of Mr. Resnick and he is quite talented. I do love to look at beautiful artwork-whether it be photography or painting. You are making a move in the right direction by getting the watermark software.
1 person likes this
@worldwise1 (14885)
• United States
10 Oct 07
You can take comfort in the knowledge that your work will be protected, pyewacket. That is a very good move on your part.
@pyewacket (43903)
• United States
9 Oct 07
Isn't he great? That's the kind of pro website I'm aiming for! He's been very nice in answering my questions about aspects of photography...it was he who initially recommended getting a Mac computer when I was hunting around for one
@pyewacket (43903)
• United States
9 Oct 07
Just downloaded the software..gee another job to do to watermark all my photos..LOL
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
13 Dec 07
Obtaining the software to place a water mark on you photos that you post is a good idea. The other thing you could do when you post on line is to submit a copy thatis at 600 x 800 pixesl and is low resoultion. It will appear on line fine but will not print larger than a wallet size photo with out looking funny and blury. If you suspect that someone is using your photos you could contact the web site and inform them of the potential copyright infringment. You may not have a case against the web site but they won't want to take the chance of a legal battle over it.
1 person likes this
@meme0907 (3481)
• United States
22 Oct 07
I could see why it would upset you for ppl to use your pics w/o permission & you have truely enlightened me to a few facts...most importantly that I should consider all my works valueable. I like posting pics online but maybe I'll stop b/c you made me realize I've given my image away for anyone to use anytime as many times as they like FREE.
TY |;)
+'s |:)
1 person likes this
@suspenseful (40193)
• Canada
9 Oct 07
I am not a photographer, but my husband has taken some very good photos that could be considered professional and my youngest brother-in-law used to be a professional photographer. I gather the rules of copyright apply to any media, whether it is photographs or writing. I usually do not let anyone see any photos I upload, but only my immediate family.
I know that in writing, once someone steals the copyright, you do not get as much and your work becomes almost worthless. That is why if I want my work critiqued, I use a private critique group instead of a public one.
@pyewacket (43903)
• United States
10 Oct 07
One of the things they say about proving copyright of written material is to mail yourself a copy of it so it has the postmark date on it..keep it sealed, so then if someone tries to use your work, you have that sealed written dated material as proof of your ownership
@LittleMel (8742)
• Canada
9 Oct 07
Hi pye, I'm not a photographer but I understand what you mean. I used to sell things online through my website and some images I put there were my supplier's copyrights so I mentioned that these images are theirs. Not only it is the right thing to do, it also saves me from future hassle just in case the customers complained they didn't receive products as they saw in pictures. I also provide services where I take pictures of the results and I placed copyright symbols on them because these are my pictures of the works I have done. This way nobody can copy them and said they were theirs. The symbol is placed across on top of the picture so it's visible.
@pyewacket (43903)
• United States
9 Oct 07
Good idea that you've done that...I just downloaded software that will enable me to put a copyright notice on my photos..so do have my work cut out for me
@smurfettewv (359)
• United States
9 Oct 07
This is a huge problem on myspace and photo bucket. Being a legal expert consult I am asked about sueing people that are using the photos with out permisson and depending on the state unless you put the watter mark or a c in the corner where it can be seen and have a disclaimer as the gentleman did on his site then there is nothing you can do its post at your own risk. There are people stealing photos and creating websites pretending to be someone else.There is free software prgrams that allpw you put the watermark or copy right symbol and Corel has a geat program for it and put in the middle of pic it will annoy you but it sill keep ur stuff safe
1 person likes this
@pyewacket (43903)
• United States
10 Oct 07
I just downloaded the iWatermark software...it was $20.00 but I think well worth it...I don't know about the Corel...I have to get software compatible with my Mac computer and the iWatermark is the one recommended, but at least now I can put a copyright symbol on my photos
@pismeof (855)
• United States
9 Oct 07
Pye ,You have hit the nail on the head.Whether it be Music,
written words,photography or anyone's hard work should receive just compensation.
I think the person who actually admitted to making an attempt at profiting from your work has a lot of b*lls.
The Internet has become such a deluge of Freebee seekers that they think that everyone's work is there for the taking.
I had recently read a response on a forum by a publisher of an internet product.(e-book)He appologized to his subscribers for training them to expect freebee's from him and that when he wanted to be compensated for the latest product one person wrote a complaint stating that he should allow them to have it for free!
1 person likes this
@pyewacket (43903)
• United States
9 Oct 07
It was an innocent mistake on the person's part really..as may not have known about copyrights--so I really don't blame her...but I just downloaded iWatermark and plan to add my copyright watermark on my photos...gee..another task to do..LOL
@artemis432 (7474)
• Abernathy, Texas
12 Oct 07
I know you wrote a post apologizing. I just wanted to say that I still think its wrong. And he happily - not apologetically told you.
1 person likes this
@peanutjar (5198)
• Canada
10 Oct 07
Hi pyewacket,i agree that people should not "take"someones elses pictures.If i liked a picture and it was not mine,but i knew the person,i would ask first if its o.k.If its not then,thats life,lol.I would not do anything else.This is one reason why i would and NEVER would put pictures of my family,me i dont care,but especially of my daughter.It is my picture and mine only,lol.If i put pictures,its usually ones i dont really care if anyone took them.I really wis you could see my daughter and how cute she is,but i dont know anyother way of showing you without running the possibility of "someone"snagging a copy of it and who knows what they will do with it.Theres alot of wackos out there.Whats my work is my work and someone should ask before so called"invading a space thats not theirs"and get a real confirmation before doing what they think is allowed and o.k.:)
@pyewacket (43903)
• United States
10 Oct 07
I don't blame you for not posting your daughter's pic..there are a lot of wackos unfortunately
