rumbled on tumblr
The eagle eyes of Roland Hulme recently alerted me to two instances of copyright theft on tumblr. I've never used this site before, and it took me a little while to work out the interface (what do you mean, you can't leave comments on blog posts?!). Still, I eventually managed to trace the images back to their original poster, "bendoverloverboy".
Let's compare this image with the original, shall we? Notice anything different? How about this tumblr pic, compared to this photo hosted on my website?
Not only has he reposted images from my website without credit or attribution, he carefully took the time to trim my watermark off both images, rendering them anonymous before he re-uploaded them. The mirror image is actually © the photographer, Jay Oak, meaning his copyright has also been infringed.
Bend over indeed, lover boy. While I thrash you with the Big Stick of Netiquette. Not only is this damn rude, it's also illegal, and contrary to tumblr's Content Policy.
I've notified tumblr, but haven't been able to contact the thief himself, as he doesn't list his email and the site doesn't allow comments on blogposts. (Since writing this post, tumblr have removed the offending posts: kudos to them for the swift response time.)
The original image Roland pointed me at was 22 "reblogs" down the chain, and while I was puzzling over how to trace it back to its source, I very nearly decided not to bother. After all, I'm not making money off these images. But I persisted; it's a point of principle, especially when I'm not the only person whose copyrighted material is being stolen. By the time I'd written an email to the support team reporting the infringement, I'd worked up a nice head of steam, and felt thoroughly justified.
It made me wonder, though. Realistically, when is it worth pursuing this sort of theft? Is there a difference between images you have to pay for, and content which is released free of charge? If an image is published in the public domain, is it fair game? Or is reposting things only acceptable as long as you don't alter the original image, or post a credit linking the copyright holder? I'd be really interested to know your thoughts.
I chase and DMCA all infringements of my copyright. I have a zero tolerance policy to people using my images or free film clips for any other purpose than directly advertising my sites.
ReplyDeleteIf more site owners took copyright theft seriously then we have a chance of actually selling memberships. It is about time the authorities took serious action against the free data storage sites such as Rapidshare as their business model is solely based on helping copyright theft.
So carry on hounding the thieves Pandora.
I think it's okay to use pictures that someone has posted on their blog, but only if you give them credit for it and tell your readers exactly where to find the original image. Taking tags off is not acceptable in my opinion, they're obviously there for a reason. And if the picture was personal, I would think it good manners to ask the copyright holder for permission to repost it first.
ReplyDeleteHey Pandora,
ReplyDeleteIf someone contacts me and asks to use a picture, I am sweetness and light and sometimes even offer to resize (and *incidentally* re-watermark!) it for them! Of course, I ask for a hyperlinked credit.
If I find someone using either a picture of me or by me, then I contact them first with a nice note asking them to give me a hyperlinked credit. If no answer is forthcoming, I contact the website owners and inform them of the situation.
To me it's all about good manners. Us models and photographers are trying to support ourselves so we can *afford to do this work* (because, let's face it, only very very few get rich off it it!) If people like our work that much, they need to support us. 'Tis that simple.
But not many of your average web browsin' people think of that. They just think, "Oh, this is a nice picture!" and they bung it up on their FetLife profile or what-have-you. So it's worth treating those people with the benefit of the doubt: if you start out nice, you might make a friend who wants to help promote you even more!
The guy who cut off your logos, however, mostly likely knew what he was about. Those people I do not treat kindly!!!
Hello Pandora
ReplyDeleteI have many images that I think are remarkabale... and friends agree. So far I haven't put them on the internet, but I've decided that when I do, I'll put a large copyright notice at 50% opacity across the middle of each image.
Yrs in pervery, Adrian
That sucks. I'm about to sue a luxury hotel chain, a major US university, a DVD distributor and a sports memorabilia company, all who have not only stole various images of mine but are making money off them in different ways.
ReplyDeleteFortunately, most of them are images that I have already registered with the US Copyright Office, which means they will be liable for much more if it goes to court.
I see my pictures and columns on various Web sites and rarely care, but when they make money off my work I get beyond pissed.
Go get 'em!
Aegean - well yes, and when I'm making money off my images I imagine I'll chase up as much of the inevitable piracy and infringement as I have time for. Would you always do the same for images provided for free, though?
ReplyDeleteIrelynn - I'm with you on this one; linked credit is the key here, and that's the principle I use on my blog. If I'm reposting images from paysites I try to limit the number, and resize them at a small resolution, so I'm not giving away too much of my friends' products. Anyone can repost something without thinking twice, especially if the image appears to be anonymous, but editing watermarks is downright devious.
Zille - Seems like a good way of doing things! I first contacted the poster who was at the end of the tumblr "chain", and tried to be polite but firm. He explained that he was just reposting and offered to remove the image. He was decent about it, so I responded in a much more friendly way, and we agreed that the original poster who removed the watermarks was a scoundrel. I don't think it's earned me anything in the way of promotion, but it was nice to end that conversation on good terms.
(Although on the subject of promotion, I should confess at this point that my carefully-worded, professional email to tumblr, which I was so proud of, I apparently managed to send from the wrong account in Thunderbird, so they got an email signed "Pandora" from one of my vanilla email accounts! This is the sound of my head thudding against my desk.)
Adrian - it's a tough balance to strike, between protecting your images and risking "ruining" them with watermarks. My watermarks used to be much more aggressive, but I didn't think they looked nice, so I opted for the smaller, more delicate one I use now. Some people I know just add a graphic border to their images and put the watermark in that, so it's part of the image but doesn't actually get in the way of the artwork at all.
If you're a thief and you're going to crop a watermark, you're going to do it however much of the image you have to lose, I suspect, unless the watermark literally covers the focus point of the image. As this incident proves, people will remove even big watermarks! If they're across the centre of your image this is harder, but I've never seen a professional photographer compromise the visual impact of his images in such a way. Maybe if it was 10% opacity? It's a dilemma alright.
Dante - Wow. Good luck with your suit. I agree that I'd be much more pissed if they were making money off my images. If they'd kept the watermark I probably wouldn't have got involved at all - sure, it's polite to post a link, but if the image is intact it's still publicity - that's what the watermark is for!
I guess I see reblogging an image without credit/permission as akin to downloading an mp3 - cheeky and technically illegal, but it can still help publicise and promote the artist. Removing a watermark or copyright notice is akin to uploading an mp3 with the ID3 tags removed, so no-one even knows who the artist is.
I suspect that it's inevitable that images freely distributed are going to be spread beyond their original range. It seems that the least that could be done though is to leave watermarks etc identifying the original source intact, so that viewers know to whom credit is due. Removing the markings is like attempting to pass off the work as the pirate's own, a particularly reprehensible form of theft...
ReplyDeleteNot being a photo-publishing type, it's not so much images of mine that have been 'borrowed' over the years, but my spanking stories.
ReplyDeleteI've always been more than happy for people to use them (with a link back to me) on free sites - especially if they've been polite enough to write to me in advance. And I don't get too upset if free sites decide to reproduce stories but still show my name - I take that as a form of flattery. I've even been happy for one or two paid foreign-language sites to translate my stories and use them - that way, they're doing some of the work, and more people get to read my thoughts.
But where I do get genuinely upset is if people try to make money from my work. Take the very distinguished spanking magazine that included two of my stories, with the characters' names changed but otherwise word-for-word identical. Or the leading spanking video site, choosing to broaden its content by featuring some stories and deciding to help themselves to a fair few of mine.
In others words - in the "free" world, I'm happy if people are enjoying my stuff provided they show some basic politeness - giving me credit, and ideally asking first. But if commercial users take advantage of me - or people try to pass off my work as their own (or deliberately remove my credits) - then I think I have the right to get annoyed with them for what is, effectively, blatant theft.
Well you could use Digimarc (https://www.digimarc.com/), but hey, it costs. What price do you put on copyright?
ReplyDelete