4 ms·

I really object to using the term ‘trolls’. There are real people on the other end trying to earn an honest living from their chosen profession. Just because it

I really object to using the term ‘trolls’. There are real people on the other end trying to earn an honest living from their chosen profession. Just because it’s ’only’ a blog, or my website is soo useful, doesn’t make it right to infringe on other people’s rights. It’s a good thing that techonology enables photographers to enforce their rights more efficiently. A good side effects is that it is starting to sink in for website maintainers that, yeah, you cannot just pick the first photo that is convenient for you.

hsbauauvhabzb 3y ago
Tfa suggested he was provided the images by a third party - how do I know the image I paid for on a stock image site is authentic and what’s to stop copywrite trolls from assuming it’s not? Personally, I think image trolls (and most copywrite complaintants in general) can get fucked.
- fortran77 3y ago
  > copywrite trolls from assuming it’s not? > Personally, I think image trolls (and most copywrite complaintants in general) can get fucked. Actually, it's "copyright" As in the "right" to "copy" something.
  - hsbauauvhabzb 3y ago
    I’m not going to validate the profession by caring how it’s spelt, nor do I care for nit picky responses like yours.
lionkor 3y ago
Yeah, this isn't trolling, it's enforcing
- michaelterryio 3y ago
  Even enforcing has a dumb ring to it.
- gwd 3y ago
  When the SFLC does GPL enforcement, their goal isn't to extract money from inevitable mistakes and oversights, but to bring the offender into compliance. Organizations who are trying to follow the rules and accidentally violate the letter of the law are given a chance to amend their practices; only when organizations intransigently resist following the rules are they targeted for lawsuits. This is enforcement: using the legal system to try to make the system work for everyone involved. When Patrick McHardy [1] did "GPL enforcement", his goal wasn't to help bring people into enforcement, but to extract money from inevitable mistakes and oversights. Organizations trying to follow the spirit of the law but accidentally violating the letter of the law were lured into restrictive contracts and then punished for minor infractions. This is trolling: using the legal system to intimidate and extract money for minor infractions. A proper "enforcement" interaction in this case, which was actually trying to make the system work well for everyone involved, would look like this: Enforcer to website: "You seem to have image X; do you have a license?" Website: "I got the image from the marketing department of Y; they said their license covered it." Enforcer to Y: "It seems you gave image X to organization Z for their website; but your license only covers you to use the image on posters. If you want to use the image for partner websites, please upgrade to the version of the license which allows this, or pay this one-off license fee." Y: "Oh yes, sorry about that; here you go." Photographer is paid for their image, innocent people don't end up paying fines for simple mistakes; the system works for everyone involved. [1] https://opensource.com/article/17/8/patrick-mchardy-and-copyright-profiteering https://opensource.com/article/17/8/patrick-mchardy-and-copy...
  - lionkor 3y ago
    Thats fair enough, its unnecessarily harsh enforcement, which then borders on trolling or power tripping or something.
firecall 3y ago
Well, it is Trolls in a way. I've helped one client who had been targeted by infringement notices for photos they own. In the process of helping them, I did some research into what's going on. What happens is that Photographers supply their content library to a company that promises to defend their images against unauthorized distribution and collect appropriate licensing fees. The problem is this: 1) these companies are very aggressive 2) they use some form of image matching search to detect image copies 3) the notices sent out are automated 4) the notices demand fees or legal action will be taken 5) there is no one to talk to or explain anything too 6) it's automated, abusive and often just plain inaccurate This approach is very stressful for clients who haven't done anything wrong and dont understand what is happening. In some cases they have no control over an image that is published but attributed to them. So yes, they are Trolls. This isn't honest creatives defending their work. In my clients case they had legitimately taken a very similar photo of a very popular public tourist attraction. Fortunately I was able to connect with the original photographer, and eventually, get them to call off their dogs.
- gnopgnip 3y ago
  If it's user generated content you can follow the steps for DMCA or the EU equivalent and not have any copyright liability
ianvisits 3y ago
I will comment on this. Yes, I used the term troll from my background many years ago writing about patent trolls, so maybe it irks people, but people who complain about one word in a much longer article are maybe... missing the point. Anyway, as you will probably notice from the article, I am not "picking the first photos that is convenient", but being sent the banner images etc by event organisers to promote their events. Yes, I can go back with a form for them to fill in and confirm they have copyright clearance etc., and doubtless they'll check, and confirm they have from photo agency X, and maybe I should also check that the photo agency has issued clearance, and that they themselves have validated that the photographer has verified they definetly took the photos... etc etc etc. You can see that there has to be a point at which you accept that someone in the chain is being honest. The issue isn't me nicking photos that are convenient, but accepting that a photo sent to me to use in an article/event listing has been cleared by the PR/marketing dept that is sending it to me. The majority of problems come from small orgs who may seem to lack an awareness of copyright, so to protect myself, I am now taking the decision not to use their images unless I have built up trust in the sender. However, even large orgs have been caught out - one example was the large theatre that paid for a license to use an image in a marketing poster, only for the stock agency to object to it being used on my website because the license (weirdly) only permitted use in their publications and no where else. That's a large org trying to do the right thing, and I am trying to do the right thing, and still getting hammered by... well, yes, they're copyright trolls.
- basisword 3y ago
  Surely you just have them sign a standard form that they have the correct license to allow you to use the image? Then, if you get targeted by a license holder the burden is passed to the people that told you they had the license. Regarding the larger org “trying to do the right thing”, they still failed to do their job properly. These license agreements are usually quite clear and specific in my experience. Their inability to understand it is the issue. They need to hire someone who can. I might not fully understand the tax system but I still have to follow it and “I tried my best” is not a valid excuse.
  - Anduia 3y ago
growt 3y ago
There are real photographers enforcing their copyright, but there are also trolls. The trolls are pushing a few Fotos they made to Wikipedia and “free Foto”-sites with missing terms. Then they search for people who stole their images and extract money. Sure the people who used the images are in the wrong legally, but the trolls actually wanted their images to be stolen. Also, for the trolls, this is the only kind of revenue they get. Those images would never be legally bought or licensed anyway
- krisoft 3y ago
  > Those images would never be legally bought or licensed anyway Why? If they are good enough that people choose to use them in their publications then why do you assert this?
  - efaref 3y ago
    We only know that they're good enough to be used for free, so all we can assert that their current value is $0.
    - Tomte 3y ago
      That the lower floor of the commercial value is zero.
- VBprogrammer 3y ago
  > Then they search for people who stole their images and extract money. I think part of this problem is that the assumed value of an image is practically 0. Conversely any YouTuber from some rural backwater will make sure there is no copyright music playing in the background of anything they intend to release because they know that it has non-0 value. The reason this changed is because people became more collectively aware of the consequences. The long term consequences are that people will ensure they have the appropriate permissions before using a photo. Even if this means paying a nearly negligible amount for access to collections of millions of photos like happens with music now.
benj111 3y ago
The article says these were images sent by the organisers. So it's plausible that the organisers did get a license that allows this. It's also plausible that they thought they were getting a license that allowed this. Ultimately though, it seems the photographer had been paid at least once. Further, in this case, it seems to me the onus should be on the organiser sending out the images intended to be used to promote the event, to make sure they have a license to do that, not on the individual websites. How are they supposed to confirm the copyright of an image, other than what they are told by the supplier of that image?
michaelterryio 3y ago
> trying to earn an honest living from their chosen profession Every once in awhile you just have to lol.
fortran77 3y ago
> A good side effects is that it is starting to sink in for website maintainers that, yeah, you cannot just pick the first photo that is convenient for you. But that's not what he did. He used the artwork his client supplied.

hsbauauvhabzb 3y ago

Tfa suggested he was provided the images by a third party - how do I know the image I paid for on a stock image site is authentic and what’s to stop copywrite trolls from assuming it’s not? Personally, I think image trolls (and most copywrite complaintants in general) can get fucked.

fortran77 3y ago
> copywrite trolls from assuming it’s not? > Personally, I think image trolls (and most copywrite complaintants in general) can get fucked. Actually, it's "copyright" As in the "right" to "copy" something.
- hsbauauvhabzb 3y ago
  I’m not going to validate the profession by caring how it’s spelt, nor do I care for nit picky responses like yours.

lionkor 3y ago

Yeah, this isn't trolling, it's enforcing

michaelterryio 3y ago
Even enforcing has a dumb ring to it.
gwd 3y ago
When the SFLC does GPL enforcement, their goal isn't to extract money from inevitable mistakes and oversights, but to bring the offender into compliance. Organizations who are trying to follow the rules and accidentally violate the letter of the law are given a chance to amend their practices; only when organizations intransigently resist following the rules are they targeted for lawsuits. This is enforcement: using the legal system to try to make the system work for everyone involved. When Patrick McHardy [1] did "GPL enforcement", his goal wasn't to help bring people into enforcement, but to extract money from inevitable mistakes and oversights. Organizations trying to follow the spirit of the law but accidentally violating the letter of the law were lured into restrictive contracts and then punished for minor infractions. This is trolling: using the legal system to intimidate and extract money for minor infractions. A proper "enforcement" interaction in this case, which was actually trying to make the system work well for everyone involved, would look like this: Enforcer to website: "You seem to have image X; do you have a license?" Website: "I got the image from the marketing department of Y; they said their license covered it." Enforcer to Y: "It seems you gave image X to organization Z for their website; but your license only covers you to use the image on posters. If you want to use the image for partner websites, please upgrade to the version of the license which allows this, or pay this one-off license fee." Y: "Oh yes, sorry about that; here you go." Photographer is paid for their image, innocent people don't end up paying fines for simple mistakes; the system works for everyone involved. [1] https://opensource.com/article/17/8/patrick-mchardy-and-copyright-profiteering https://opensource.com/article/17/8/patrick-mchardy-and-copy...
- lionkor 3y ago
  Thats fair enough, its unnecessarily harsh enforcement, which then borders on trolling or power tripping or something.

firecall 3y ago

Well, it is Trolls in a way. I've helped one client who had been targeted by infringement notices for photos they own. In the process of helping them, I did some research into what's going on. What happens is that Photographers supply their content library to a company that promises to defend their images against unauthorized distribution and collect appropriate licensing fees. The problem is this: 1) these companies are very aggressive 2) they use some form of image matching search to detect image copies 3) the notices sent out are automated 4) the notices demand fees or legal action will be taken 5) there is no one to talk to or explain anything too 6) it's automated, abusive and often just plain inaccurate This approach is very stressful for clients who haven't done anything wrong and dont understand what is happening. In some cases they have no control over an image that is published but attributed to them. So yes, they are Trolls. This isn't honest creatives defending their work. In my clients case they had legitimately taken a very similar photo of a very popular public tourist attraction. Fortunately I was able to connect with the original photographer, and eventually, get them to call off their dogs.

gnopgnip 3y ago
If it's user generated content you can follow the steps for DMCA or the EU equivalent and not have any copyright liability

ianvisits 3y ago

I will comment on this. Yes, I used the term troll from my background many years ago writing about patent trolls, so maybe it irks people, but people who complain about one word in a much longer article are maybe... missing the point. Anyway, as you will probably notice from the article, I am not "picking the first photos that is convenient", but being sent the banner images etc by event organisers to promote their events. Yes, I can go back with a form for them to fill in and confirm they have copyright clearance etc., and doubtless they'll check, and confirm they have from photo agency X, and maybe I should also check that the photo agency has issued clearance, and that they themselves have validated that the photographer has verified they definetly took the photos... etc etc etc. You can see that there has to be a point at which you accept that someone in the chain is being honest. The issue isn't me nicking photos that are convenient, but accepting that a photo sent to me to use in an article/event listing has been cleared by the PR/marketing dept that is sending it to me. The majority of problems come from small orgs who may seem to lack an awareness of copyright, so to protect myself, I am now taking the decision not to use their images unless I have built up trust in the sender. However, even large orgs have been caught out - one example was the large theatre that paid for a license to use an image in a marketing poster, only for the stock agency to object to it being used on my website because the license (weirdly) only permitted use in their publications and no where else. That's a large org trying to do the right thing, and I am trying to do the right thing, and still getting hammered by... well, yes, they're copyright trolls.

basisword 3y ago
Surely you just have them sign a standard form that they have the correct license to allow you to use the image? Then, if you get targeted by a license holder the burden is passed to the people that told you they had the license. Regarding the larger org “trying to do the right thing”, they still failed to do their job properly. These license agreements are usually quite clear and specific in my experience. Their inability to understand it is the issue. They need to hire someone who can. I might not fully understand the tax system but I still have to follow it and “I tried my best” is not a valid excuse.
- Anduia 3y ago

growt 3y ago

There are real photographers enforcing their copyright, but there are also trolls. The trolls are pushing a few Fotos they made to Wikipedia and “free Foto”-sites with missing terms. Then they search for people who stole their images and extract money. Sure the people who used the images are in the wrong legally, but the trolls actually wanted their images to be stolen. Also, for the trolls, this is the only kind of revenue they get. Those images would never be legally bought or licensed anyway

krisoft 3y ago
> Those images would never be legally bought or licensed anyway Why? If they are good enough that people choose to use them in their publications then why do you assert this?
- efaref 3y ago
  We only know that they're good enough to be used for free, so all we can assert that their current value is $0.
  - Tomte 3y ago
    That the lower floor of the commercial value is zero.
VBprogrammer 3y ago
> Then they search for people who stole their images and extract money. I think part of this problem is that the assumed value of an image is practically 0. Conversely any YouTuber from some rural backwater will make sure there is no copyright music playing in the background of anything they intend to release because they know that it has non-0 value. The reason this changed is because people became more collectively aware of the consequences. The long term consequences are that people will ensure they have the appropriate permissions before using a photo. Even if this means paying a nearly negligible amount for access to collections of millions of photos like happens with music now.

benj111 3y ago

The article says these were images sent by the organisers. So it's plausible that the organisers did get a license that allows this. It's also plausible that they thought they were getting a license that allowed this. Ultimately though, it seems the photographer had been paid at least once. Further, in this case, it seems to me the onus should be on the organiser sending out the images intended to be used to promote the event, to make sure they have a license to do that, not on the individual websites. How are they supposed to confirm the copyright of an image, other than what they are told by the supplier of that image?

michaelterryio 3y ago

> trying to earn an honest living from their chosen profession Every once in awhile you just have to lol.

fortran77 3y ago

> A good side effects is that it is starting to sink in for website maintainers that, yeah, you cannot just pick the first photo that is convenient for you. But that's not what he did. He used the artwork his client supplied.