A group has been set up on Facebook for photographers to gather together and collect information about 'stolen photographs'.
One of my photographs appeared on someone's Facebook wall tonight, as advised by Bazza Houston.
Decided to set up a NEB version - the names of those who have 'stolen' any photographs will be listed in the original post for good measure.
Name and shame time, folks!
The list:- Chris MacKinnon
- Garreth Kai McLeary
Chris MacKinnon has removed the photograph from his Facebook wall now, but his name can remain on the name and shame list!
See attachment for my lovely conversation with him.
(01 Jan 2014, 10:27 pm)Dan wrote [ -> ]Chris MacKinnon has removed the photograph from his Facebook wall now, but his name can remain on the name and shame list!
See attachment for my lovely conversation with him.
Wey at least he was decent about it.
(01 Jan 2014, 10:31 pm)tyresmoke wrote [ -> ]Wey at least he was decent about it.
Haha, the first one I've had to deal with... Glad he removed it no bother though!
(01 Jan 2014, 10:27 pm)Dan wrote [ -> ]Chris MacKinnon has removed the photograph from his Facebook wall now, but his name can remain on the name and shame list!
See attachment for my lovely conversation with him.
You're a lot more diplomatic than I am then.
When it comes to photos, is it classed as thieving if I say admired a photo and decide to share it, say, on my Facebook wall? Not that I click a share button much...was just wondering
(03 Jan 2014, 8:30 am)fozzovmurton wrote [ -> ]When it comes to photos, is it classed as thieving if I say admired a photo and decide to share it, say, on my Facebook wall? Not that I click a share button much...was just wondering
I wouldn't say so, because you've got a link back to the original photograph and are therefore crediting the author.
Ah right, as I said, It is not a button I normally click, but when I see something I like or find funny, I do like to share, I am not one to want to cause trouble, I dont see why people feel the need to steal a photo, I have been lucky on that count, my photos are mostly shit, but it does not take 2 minutes to try seek permission
(03 Jan 2014, 8:34 am)Dan wrote [ -> ]I wouldn't say so, because you've got a link back to the original photograph and are therefore crediting the author.
Yep exactly. The issue is not so much sharing of your work (with a link back to your site), but taking your work and passing it off as your own is completely different kettle of fish.
Does anyone actually change their sharing settings on flickr by the way? I've got Getty images licencing enabled, but also creative commons licensed as long as the image isn't modified in any way.
(03 Jan 2014, 10:58 am)aureolin wrote [ -> ]Does anyone actually change their sharing settings on flickr by the way? I've got Getty images licencing enabled, but also creative commons licensed as long as the image isn't modified in any way.
I hadn't changed the setting until very recently, when I just thought to disable downloading.
More than happy for anyone to use my photographs as long as I'm asked first and credit is provided.
(10 Jan 2014, 12:25 pm)Scott wrote [ -> ]I think that if there is an issue with someone copying a photo, they should be asked to take it down first. If they don't comply, then they can be named and shamed. Copyright law can be difficult to understand at times, and mistakes do happen, but those who comply with requests should not be named and shamed. I would urge you to take Chris MacKinnon's name of the list for this very reason.
While I admit he complied with my request immediately, the point is he shouldn't have uploaded the photo himself without prior consent from me. You don't mistakingly download an image and upload it to your website...
(14 Jan 2014, 8:55 am)Scott wrote [ -> ]I have named and shamed people on some of my websites in the past, and it got me no where. Sometimes people when using social networking sites think the are just sharing a photo with their friends and forget that the image is going public. Other times the person has downloaded it to keep a copy on there computer for their own personal use (which is perfectly legal), but then the photo gets mixed up amongst photos they have taken them selves and they accidently posted it online.
I do agree with your point on that prior consent should be obtained first, but I don't feel it is right to name and shame before a request has been made to the person for it to be removed.
Also, there is some script that can be integrated into websites to disable the right hand mouse click so the photo can't be copied in the first place (obviously not possible if using third party sharing sites such as Flickr).
Any photograph can be retrieved by looking at the page source. Right clicks removed or not.
(14 Jan 2014, 10:26 am)Dan wrote [ -> ]Any photograph can be retrieved by looking at the page source. Right clicks removed or not.
Something I figured out years both to my cost and advantage...I had a site about 13 years ago, the whole site was ripped off, the only difference was the layout was different, a lot of pictures and videos were stolen, where I didn't have the right click protection set, because most people would use my material with permission, the person who ripped me off marked the pictures and protected what they thought was the source and pictures...
They got a shock when I copied there site complete with marked pictures, they didnt realise I had been able to copy the spurce of the whole site, a few threats to my health later, the site went altogether, my own site suffered, it disappeared in late 2002, was nothing special really, but I enjoyed working on it