10 ms·

Letters to my copyright infringers

151 points by RougeFemme 13y ago

losethos 13y ago
Dad does what he can get away with. Either Dad told the pest company it was me or the pest company mistakenly thought it was me. I did not pay hospital bills when they took me against my will. I have God. Who the hell are you. It is you who will be terrified of justice, mother fucker. I'm_gonna_smack_someone heaven manufacturing You_get_what_you_pray_for vice umm_the_other_answer are_you_sure it_figures sky commanded grumble wonderful chill it's_hopeless in_other_words naughty dance happy incoming adjusted_for_inflation study eh sing hope handyman not_in_kansas_anymore nevada The_good_stuff refreshing basket_case Japan Watch_this God ahh I'm_beginning_to_wonder gluttony lying what_have_you_done_for_me_lately just_lovely I_didn't_do_it love you're_out_of_your_mind nerd basically I'm_done I_was_sleeping geek laziness what_a_nightmare absetively_posilutely whazza_matter_for_you peace ---- I would love to go to court. I would be ruler of the world, then.
slapshot 13y ago
But doesn't he realize how much free exposure he's missing out on? /sarcasm
- harshreality 13y ago
  I think he does, which is why for non-commercial infringement (example 2) he asks that the image simply be credited and linked to his site.
  - bostik 13y ago
    In particular, he explains why he requires the attribution and link to originals. To prevent downstream infringement. It should be obvious from these letters that drive-by "lift it from the web, slap on own product" infringement is unpleasantly common. A person I knew in university has had book reviews lifted word-for-word from her site and used elsewhere for endorsement/advertising purposes. At least with text it's relatively easy to find identical snippets. Without any attribution, I can only imagine how difficult it would be to track down an original photo once it has passed through a dozen different image sites.
bmelton 13y ago
As someone who runs a number of message boards, I can say that I would be thrilled to receive such high quality takedown notices. I deal with these often enough that I can attest to the general badness of takedown notices -- usually, they include the victim's name, the accusation that I'm infringing, and the demand for a takedown. Most noticeably, what is almost always missing are descriptions of the images, links to where they're located on the site (I can't find an image by name if one of my members posted it -- I just can't), etc. As these include all of the above, I have to say kudos. Somewhat offtopic, perhaps I should post my "Here's why I'm not complying with your DMCA takedown notice" standard letters as a response. (Not because I'm a dick, but because I don't personally violate image copyrights, and if my members do, it's hosted externally by design -- what I do instead is redirect the complainant to where the image is hosted and offer any assistance I can, short of editing user posts on my properties.)
- rurounijones 13y ago
  To be honest, I would like to see those templates. There is nothing "dick'ish" about posting them (or the links to them) here. DCMA is highly abused but that doesn't mean we cannot make things more civil when there appears to be a breach. These kinds of templates help with that.
  - bmelton 13y ago
    Looking through my sent box, this one seems to be the one I've used most, and I've crudely converted it into a Google Drive public doc. Feel free to use / adapt / modify however you want. I relinquish copyright on it altogether. It's world-readable, and commenting is enabled, so feel free to make suggestions. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dO9MWUH6pYTXb34Vr-0A2fdv7nbGdCl41xd9RBmnnRw/edit?usp=sharing https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dO9MWUH6pYTXb34Vr-0A2fdv...
    - dvanduzer 13y ago
      I commend you on your diplomacy. And particularly for sharing that in a venue where the word copyright is usually followed by the word cartel.
spiritplumber 13y ago
The last time I was in an attribution conflict was with the OpenROV guys. What I told them was "If you give me back the Make Magazine prize that you won with my design, and you have Make change the links, I will allow you to live." It got done in a week.
- joshu 13y ago
  What happened?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - spiritplumber 13y ago
    What happened is that two guys comes to me, says "Make me a ROV that fits in this plastic shell I made", and I do. Then he goes to maker faire NY to show it off. I do not go with him because a friend of mine had a panic attack and needed someone to stay home with her. Next thing I know, the ROV had been done by the two guys without my input. I do not mind them making money on the design (which has since been improved) largely because guy #2 had just gotten married with a baby on the way, but the lack of attribution irritated me, so I had a talk with them and with someone from Make about it. The fact that they changed the design a little means that the ROV's battery life is about two thirds of what it was supposed to be, and cannot recharge while stopped underwater. I may release the intended version next year if there is any interest.
- PhasmaFelis 13y ago
  You've just gotta share the rest of that story.
  - spiritplumber 13y ago
    Sorry about not answering sooner, was doing a field deployment.
imperialdrive 13y ago
my last read of the night - and turned out to be pretty interesting... thanks!
e28eta 13y ago
Interesting article, even better pictures. I spent a little time browsing his galleries, and was quite impressed.
- kubiiii 13y ago
  I wanted to say exactly the same. Upon reading this interesting article, don't forget to check out the galleries. No wonder why those pictures are being widely used, they are amazing.
  - bermanoid 13y ago
    For the lazy: http://www.alexanderwild.com/ http://www.alexanderwild.com/
  - masklinn 13y ago
    Yeah Alex Wild is a fantastic photographer (and as far as I've seen human being), following him on twitter or his blogging venues is a real treat of fantastic insect photographs, and stuff about photography in general (IIRC he hosts insect photog trips in Belize or something along those lines). And I find seeing him battling with copyright infringement, while definitely a waste of his time, an often-needed recentering as a developer since my experience with IP is generally bullshit patents leading to a slanted view of IP.
negrit 13y ago
I just made a couple research and some of my pictures are also being use in some mobile apps/websites. Does anyone has a tool to check if pictures are being hosted somewhere else ? I don't want to run 100 queries on google.
- dmunoz 13y ago
  I'm not sure exactly what you are asking for, but TinEye reverse image search might be what you are after? https://tineye.com/ https://tineye.com/
  - gingerlime 13y ago
    tineye looks great and even has a (commercial) API. When we tried it however, it could hardly find any image. Google reverse image search seemed to produce many more results, including images appearing inside youtube videos!
- chrismcb 13y ago
  http://images.google.com http://images.google.com
BorisMelnik 13y ago
"On top of being a copyright violation, the use of a potentially endangered insect to sell an insect-killing product is both inappropriate and offensive." rofld
- chris_wot 13y ago
  Not to mention, counter productive. If you kill all the insects you are targeting, you don't get to sell any more product...
- steveklabnik 13y ago
  DH0. You can do better! http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
  - abhididdigi 13y ago
    I'm not sure if BorisMelnik is disagreeing.
- andrelaszlo 13y ago
  Might be this site: http://www.zeropestsolution.com/mission.html http://www.zeropestsolution.com/mission.html or another one just like it... :(
gingerlime 13y ago
We're in a similar situation. We've built an online platform for learning anatomy[1], and produce our own original illustrations. These are available (to view) for free[2], which makes it also easy to copy. Some bloggers even use our CDN, costing us even more money. We're based in Berlin, Germany, so not entirely sure if (or how) the DMCA applies. But if we were to send a takedown notice (DMCA or otherwise), we're still not sure about one thing: For user-generated-content sites, do we have to keep policing those sites for "repeat offenders"? Or is this the site's responsibility? Users are likely to keep uploading our content and it can become labour intensive over time... [1] https://www.kenhub.com https://www.kenhub.com [2] https://www.kenhub.com/en/atlas https://www.kenhub.com/en/atlas
- Cthulhu_ 13y ago
  What I'd definitely do is install a filter (of sorts) on your CDN that serves a reduced-size, watermarked version of your images, for the unavoidable hotlinking. As for policing user-generated content sites... it kinda depends. If used on a forum, for example for educational purposes (explaining something), I wouldn't bother. Fair use, live and let live, etc - they're getting a watermarked version (link to the source, copyright etc) anyway. For commercial use, do keep policing them. There should be software and websites out there (google image search by image, for example) to make it easier for you. disclaimer: IANAL etc.
  - gingerlime 13y ago
    Thanks. Some times those images are cropped to remove our watermark (we don't want to make it too strong, after all, it's very important that you can see the anatomy structure as clearly as possible on our website. precision and detail is key) We're doing some searches, but it takes time. Of course small forums for fair use is fine, but we've seen our illustrations on sites that allow users to build online quizzes and flashcards, which kinda competes with our own product. If we have to keep searching for our own images on those sites, this can be very costly for us in the long run. We hope the site owners will take responsibility for this. In any case, we haven't contacted them yet, so we'll have to wait and see. We hope they understand our situation and will do whatever they can to help. Was just curious about the legal (or even ethical) situation in these cases of repeat offenders which are user-generated...
cinitriqs 13y ago
The funny thing is... people refer to google image search as a solution to track down infringers... yet... the fact that those pictures can be found on google image search seems to be overlooked... isn't google infringing by showing us any pictures at all? or are they allowed to make money off of it by showing it in their image search results... Just stating the obvious here... it's not infringement if you are... big brother?
- Argorak 13y ago
  As always, context is the problem. Google is showing those pictures because they run a search service, which has the goal of passing you off to the orignating site. Also, you _can_ tell Google to not index these images (robots.txt) etc. The thing with search machines is that the laws were rarely written with them in mind. Also, there are attempts to implement precisely what you are arguing here. In Germany, there is the Leistungsschutzrecht for Text, which says that you have to pay for excerpts like Google creates them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancillary_copyright_for_press_publishers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancillary_copyright_for_press_p... They are usually a horrible mess.
yason 13y ago
I hope he still has time to shoot photographs, too. :-/
- tbarbugli 13y ago
  Well thats why he need email templates :) Looking at the galleries it seems like it does!
notcub 13y ago
Interesting. Scientific American used a photo of mine from Flickr[1] that is not licensed for commercial use[2] for one of their articles[3]. I'd be happy to grant them a license to use the image if they had of asked, so it seemed like a waste time to follow up on, just to demand that they do nothing and have a license. Nonetheless they are technically in violation. It does seem a little have-your-cake-and-eat-it that they would do this on the one hand, and publish a blog article encouraging people in my situation to go after violators with a form letter. On the other hand, the article does note: > The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American. [1] http://www.flickr.com/photos/notcub/917981750/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/notcub/917981750/ [2] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en [3] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=poisoning-the-well-how-the-feds-let-energy-and-mining-companies-pollute-underground http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=poisoning-t...
DanielBMarkham 13y ago
I run a bunch of small content sites, and dad a guy email me last month with an image that was a problem. It was a 64px icon version of a generic photograph of a pill bottle and pills that he had used the larger version on his site. I don't have a problem with playing nice and abiding by the law, but geesh. We spent a ton of money screwing around with a small image that wasn't even directly related to his site or work, much less mine. Made me wonder if there was some other part of the story I was missing.
collyw 13y ago
I haven't too much sympathy for photographers as a group in general, as they regularly take my picture without asking. Its usually (in my opinion) the subject of the photograph that makes it interesting, not the style that a photographer has put on it. I always find it a bit strange that copyright seems to protect the photographers rights, while ignoring the subject.
- delinka 13y ago
  Copyright is concerned with the creator of a work. The photographer created a photograph by setting up the camera and pressing the button. That said, the smart photographer will obtain a license from the model (a 'model release') to distribute photos with the model's likeness. If you find photos of yourself being reproduced when you gave no permission, you may indeed have a legal beef with the photographer ... just not under copyright law.
  - daenz 13y ago
    My fashion is a work of art, of which the photographer is illegally reproducing a visual copy.
    - delinka 13y ago
      Are you attempting to suggest that how you've dressed is deserving of copyright protection? You'll need to argue that before a judge. I'd bet that you'll have to show that much of your own creations (of clothing or jewelry) are involved, conscious creative effort summoned in deciding what pieces complement others to make the impression you are striving for, etc. If you suggest that making a copyrightable ensemble out of off-the-shelf clothing is permissible, then Levi's gets to claim similar copyright on their "works of art" and no one can ever photograph anyone else wearing them without permission of Levi's. It is my opinion that unless you've done what I mention above (created the parts yourself, etc) then your choice of dress today has no copyright protection. We can discuss our opinions on the finer details of the ambiguities of copyright until the universe collapses in on itself and it's pointless until you take your case to the courts and get a definitive legal ruling.
mrdiran 13y ago
Disclaimer: Shameless Plug. I'm working on a tool to help people out with this problem. My tool will monitor the internet and email you when your images are used on other sites. For a current solution, you'll need to do a google reverse image search, one by one for each image, periodically. This is tedious work nobody really wants to do. My tool will be making this process a whole lot easier. All you have to do is type in your site address, the tool will scan your site for all images and will email you a report every week on where your images are being used. To join as a beta tester or early adopter, please submit your email on my landing page www.checkmypics.com . I'm also looking for other techies to help out with development. Experience with scraping is a plus! - Diran (YC S13 rejected applicant)
- negrit 13y ago
  Too bad you don't accept email like foo.bar+something@gmail.com
  - mrdiran 13y ago
    I don't quite understand what you mean. Message me? diran@dirango.com
    - clienthunter 13y ago
      He means the validation of your sign-ups' email addresses is too restrictive and disallowing the '+' (which is valid). In fact, an awful lot of characters usually excluded are valid. There's a spec somewhere.
wikwocket 13y ago
Nice letters, shame that photographers have to spend time policing usages of their work though. I wonder if there is a lightweight solution that can be built, something that will search for your images online, try to find contact info for infringers, and (on your authorization), send email takedown requests and track the replies? I know you can retain legal help to do this now, but it might be an interesting SAAS sort of offering.
- mrdiran 13y ago
  That's exactly what I'm working on! If anyone wants to help out. Message me at diran@dirango.com To get on the list for launch, subscribe at www.checkmypics.com
mathattack 13y ago
I'm curious if request #5 actually ever generated revenue.
quadrangle 13y ago
The propaganda still present: "My original, copyright-protected work is here" Should be "My original, copyright-restricted work is here" "I don’t mean to be harsh, but photography is how I make my living." — implies that stopping sharing of his photographs is necessarily fundamental to living as a photographer (may be today, but this shouldn't be accepted as the only way our economy can work) "On top of being a copyright violation, the use of a potentially endangered insect to sell an insect-killing product is both inappropriate and offensive." Wow, yeah, but it's the use that's offensive, not so much the infringement. I would have sent this anyway, and if they kept using it, I'd make a public stink about it. "Such infringements are illegal, they waste my time, and they devalue my work." The first part is true, the second part is only because he chooses to waste his time, and the third part is completely wrong. It remains totally unclear whether these take-downs are actually benefiting the photographer. It is nice that he's human and reasonable, but there's still so many assumptions here.

151 points by RougeFemme 13y ago

Dad does what he can get away with. Either Dad told the pest company it was me or the pest company mistakenly thought it was me. I did not pay hospital bills when they took me against my will. I have God. Who the hell are you. It is you who will be terrified of justice, mother fucker. I'm_gonna_smack_someone heaven manufacturing You_get_what_you_pray_for vice umm_the_other_answer are_you_sure it_figures sky commanded grumble wonderful chill it's_hopeless in_other_words naughty dance happy incoming adjusted_for_inflation study eh sing hope handyman not_in_kansas_anymore nevada The_good_stuff refreshing basket_case Japan Watch_this God ahh I'm_beginning_to_wonder gluttony lying what_have_you_done_for_me_lately just_lovely I_didn't_do_it love you're_out_of_your_mind nerd basically I'm_done I_was_sleeping geek laziness what_a_nightmare absetively_posilutely whazza_matter_for_you peace ---- I would love to go to court. I would be ruler of the world, then.

slapshot 13y ago

But doesn't he realize how much free exposure he's missing out on? /sarcasm

harshreality 13y ago
I think he does, which is why for non-commercial infringement (example 2) he asks that the image simply be credited and linked to his site.
- bostik 13y ago
  In particular, he explains why he requires the attribution and link to originals. To prevent downstream infringement. It should be obvious from these letters that drive-by "lift it from the web, slap on own product" infringement is unpleasantly common. A person I knew in university has had book reviews lifted word-for-word from her site and used elsewhere for endorsement/advertising purposes. At least with text it's relatively easy to find identical snippets. Without any attribution, I can only imagine how difficult it would be to track down an original photo once it has passed through a dozen different image sites.

bmelton 13y ago

As someone who runs a number of message boards, I can say that I would be thrilled to receive such high quality takedown notices. I deal with these often enough that I can attest to the general badness of takedown notices -- usually, they include the victim's name, the accusation that I'm infringing, and the demand for a takedown. Most noticeably, what is almost always missing are descriptions of the images, links to where they're located on the site (I can't find an image by name if one of my members posted it -- I just can't), etc. As these include all of the above, I have to say kudos. Somewhat offtopic, perhaps I should post my "Here's why I'm not complying with your DMCA takedown notice" standard letters as a response. (Not because I'm a dick, but because I don't personally violate image copyrights, and if my members do, it's hosted externally by design -- what I do instead is redirect the complainant to where the image is hosted and offer any assistance I can, short of editing user posts on my properties.)

rurounijones 13y ago
To be honest, I would like to see those templates. There is nothing "dick'ish" about posting them (or the links to them) here. DCMA is highly abused but that doesn't mean we cannot make things more civil when there appears to be a breach. These kinds of templates help with that.
- bmelton 13y ago
  Looking through my sent box, this one seems to be the one I've used most, and I've crudely converted it into a Google Drive public doc. Feel free to use / adapt / modify however you want. I relinquish copyright on it altogether. It's world-readable, and commenting is enabled, so feel free to make suggestions. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dO9MWUH6pYTXb34Vr-0A2fdv7nbGdCl41xd9RBmnnRw/edit?usp=sharing https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dO9MWUH6pYTXb34Vr-0A2fdv...
  - dvanduzer 13y ago
    I commend you on your diplomacy. And particularly for sharing that in a venue where the word copyright is usually followed by the word cartel.

spiritplumber 13y ago

The last time I was in an attribution conflict was with the OpenROV guys. What I told them was "If you give me back the Make Magazine prize that you won with my design, and you have Make change the links, I will allow you to live." It got done in a week.

joshu 13y ago
What happened?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- spiritplumber 13y ago
  What happened is that two guys comes to me, says "Make me a ROV that fits in this plastic shell I made", and I do. Then he goes to maker faire NY to show it off. I do not go with him because a friend of mine had a panic attack and needed someone to stay home with her. Next thing I know, the ROV had been done by the two guys without my input. I do not mind them making money on the design (which has since been improved) largely because guy #2 had just gotten married with a baby on the way, but the lack of attribution irritated me, so I had a talk with them and with someone from Make about it. The fact that they changed the design a little means that the ROV's battery life is about two thirds of what it was supposed to be, and cannot recharge while stopped underwater. I may release the intended version next year if there is any interest.
PhasmaFelis 13y ago
You've just gotta share the rest of that story.
- spiritplumber 13y ago
  Sorry about not answering sooner, was doing a field deployment.

imperialdrive 13y ago

my last read of the night - and turned out to be pretty interesting... thanks!

e28eta 13y ago

Interesting article, even better pictures. I spent a little time browsing his galleries, and was quite impressed.

kubiiii 13y ago
I wanted to say exactly the same. Upon reading this interesting article, don't forget to check out the galleries. No wonder why those pictures are being widely used, they are amazing.
- bermanoid 13y ago
  For the lazy: http://www.alexanderwild.com/ http://www.alexanderwild.com/
- masklinn 13y ago
  Yeah Alex Wild is a fantastic photographer (and as far as I've seen human being), following him on twitter or his blogging venues is a real treat of fantastic insect photographs, and stuff about photography in general (IIRC he hosts insect photog trips in Belize or something along those lines). And I find seeing him battling with copyright infringement, while definitely a waste of his time, an often-needed recentering as a developer since my experience with IP is generally bullshit patents leading to a slanted view of IP.

negrit 13y ago

I just made a couple research and some of my pictures are also being use in some mobile apps/websites. Does anyone has a tool to check if pictures are being hosted somewhere else ? I don't want to run 100 queries on google.

dmunoz 13y ago
I'm not sure exactly what you are asking for, but TinEye reverse image search might be what you are after? https://tineye.com/ https://tineye.com/
- gingerlime 13y ago
  tineye looks great and even has a (commercial) API. When we tried it however, it could hardly find any image. Google reverse image search seemed to produce many more results, including images appearing inside youtube videos!
chrismcb 13y ago
http://images.google.com http://images.google.com

BorisMelnik 13y ago

"On top of being a copyright violation, the use of a potentially endangered insect to sell an insect-killing product is both inappropriate and offensive." rofld

chris_wot 13y ago
Not to mention, counter productive. If you kill all the insects you are targeting, you don't get to sell any more product...
steveklabnik 13y ago
DH0. You can do better! http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
- abhididdigi 13y ago
  I'm not sure if BorisMelnik is disagreeing.
andrelaszlo 13y ago
Might be this site: http://www.zeropestsolution.com/mission.html http://www.zeropestsolution.com/mission.html or another one just like it... :(

gingerlime 13y ago

We're in a similar situation. We've built an online platform for learning anatomy[1], and produce our own original illustrations. These are available (to view) for free[2], which makes it also easy to copy. Some bloggers even use our CDN, costing us even more money. We're based in Berlin, Germany, so not entirely sure if (or how) the DMCA applies. But if we were to send a takedown notice (DMCA or otherwise), we're still not sure about one thing: For user-generated-content sites, do we have to keep policing those sites for "repeat offenders"? Or is this the site's responsibility? Users are likely to keep uploading our content and it can become labour intensive over time... [1] https://www.kenhub.com https://www.kenhub.com [2] https://www.kenhub.com/en/atlas https://www.kenhub.com/en/atlas

Cthulhu_ 13y ago
What I'd definitely do is install a filter (of sorts) on your CDN that serves a reduced-size, watermarked version of your images, for the unavoidable hotlinking. As for policing user-generated content sites... it kinda depends. If used on a forum, for example for educational purposes (explaining something), I wouldn't bother. Fair use, live and let live, etc - they're getting a watermarked version (link to the source, copyright etc) anyway. For commercial use, do keep policing them. There should be software and websites out there (google image search by image, for example) to make it easier for you. disclaimer: IANAL etc.
- gingerlime 13y ago
  Thanks. Some times those images are cropped to remove our watermark (we don't want to make it too strong, after all, it's very important that you can see the anatomy structure as clearly as possible on our website. precision and detail is key) We're doing some searches, but it takes time. Of course small forums for fair use is fine, but we've seen our illustrations on sites that allow users to build online quizzes and flashcards, which kinda competes with our own product. If we have to keep searching for our own images on those sites, this can be very costly for us in the long run. We hope the site owners will take responsibility for this. In any case, we haven't contacted them yet, so we'll have to wait and see. We hope they understand our situation and will do whatever they can to help. Was just curious about the legal (or even ethical) situation in these cases of repeat offenders which are user-generated...

cinitriqs 13y ago

The funny thing is... people refer to google image search as a solution to track down infringers... yet... the fact that those pictures can be found on google image search seems to be overlooked... isn't google infringing by showing us any pictures at all? or are they allowed to make money off of it by showing it in their image search results... Just stating the obvious here... it's not infringement if you are... big brother?

Argorak 13y ago
As always, context is the problem. Google is showing those pictures because they run a search service, which has the goal of passing you off to the orignating site. Also, you _can_ tell Google to not index these images (robots.txt) etc. The thing with search machines is that the laws were rarely written with them in mind. Also, there are attempts to implement precisely what you are arguing here. In Germany, there is the Leistungsschutzrecht for Text, which says that you have to pay for excerpts like Google creates them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancillary_copyright_for_press_publishers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancillary_copyright_for_press_p... They are usually a horrible mess.

yason 13y ago

I hope he still has time to shoot photographs, too. :-/

tbarbugli 13y ago
Well thats why he need email templates :) Looking at the galleries it seems like it does!

notcub 13y ago

Interesting. Scientific American used a photo of mine from Flickr[1] that is not licensed for commercial use[2] for one of their articles[3]. I'd be happy to grant them a license to use the image if they had of asked, so it seemed like a waste time to follow up on, just to demand that they do nothing and have a license. Nonetheless they are technically in violation. It does seem a little have-your-cake-and-eat-it that they would do this on the one hand, and publish a blog article encouraging people in my situation to go after violators with a form letter. On the other hand, the article does note: > The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American. [1] http://www.flickr.com/photos/notcub/917981750/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/notcub/917981750/ [2] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en [3] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=poisoning-the-well-how-the-feds-let-energy-and-mining-companies-pollute-underground http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=poisoning-t...

DanielBMarkham 13y ago

I run a bunch of small content sites, and dad a guy email me last month with an image that was a problem. It was a 64px icon version of a generic photograph of a pill bottle and pills that he had used the larger version on his site. I don't have a problem with playing nice and abiding by the law, but geesh. We spent a ton of money screwing around with a small image that wasn't even directly related to his site or work, much less mine. Made me wonder if there was some other part of the story I was missing.

collyw 13y ago

I haven't too much sympathy for photographers as a group in general, as they regularly take my picture without asking. Its usually (in my opinion) the subject of the photograph that makes it interesting, not the style that a photographer has put on it. I always find it a bit strange that copyright seems to protect the photographers rights, while ignoring the subject.

delinka 13y ago
Copyright is concerned with the creator of a work. The photographer created a photograph by setting up the camera and pressing the button. That said, the smart photographer will obtain a license from the model (a 'model release') to distribute photos with the model's likeness. If you find photos of yourself being reproduced when you gave no permission, you may indeed have a legal beef with the photographer ... just not under copyright law.
- daenz 13y ago
  My fashion is a work of art, of which the photographer is illegally reproducing a visual copy.
  - delinka 13y ago
    Are you attempting to suggest that how you've dressed is deserving of copyright protection? You'll need to argue that before a judge. I'd bet that you'll have to show that much of your own creations (of clothing or jewelry) are involved, conscious creative effort summoned in deciding what pieces complement others to make the impression you are striving for, etc. If you suggest that making a copyrightable ensemble out of off-the-shelf clothing is permissible, then Levi's gets to claim similar copyright on their "works of art" and no one can ever photograph anyone else wearing them without permission of Levi's. It is my opinion that unless you've done what I mention above (created the parts yourself, etc) then your choice of dress today has no copyright protection. We can discuss our opinions on the finer details of the ambiguities of copyright until the universe collapses in on itself and it's pointless until you take your case to the courts and get a definitive legal ruling.

mrdiran 13y ago

Disclaimer: Shameless Plug. I'm working on a tool to help people out with this problem. My tool will monitor the internet and email you when your images are used on other sites. For a current solution, you'll need to do a google reverse image search, one by one for each image, periodically. This is tedious work nobody really wants to do. My tool will be making this process a whole lot easier. All you have to do is type in your site address, the tool will scan your site for all images and will email you a report every week on where your images are being used. To join as a beta tester or early adopter, please submit your email on my landing page www.checkmypics.com . I'm also looking for other techies to help out with development. Experience with scraping is a plus! - Diran (YC S13 rejected applicant)

negrit 13y ago
Too bad you don't accept email like foo.bar+something@gmail.com
- mrdiran 13y ago
  I don't quite understand what you mean. Message me? diran@dirango.com
  - clienthunter 13y ago
    He means the validation of your sign-ups' email addresses is too restrictive and disallowing the '+' (which is valid). In fact, an awful lot of characters usually excluded are valid. There's a spec somewhere.

wikwocket 13y ago

Nice letters, shame that photographers have to spend time policing usages of their work though. I wonder if there is a lightweight solution that can be built, something that will search for your images online, try to find contact info for infringers, and (on your authorization), send email takedown requests and track the replies? I know you can retain legal help to do this now, but it might be an interesting SAAS sort of offering.

mrdiran 13y ago
That's exactly what I'm working on! If anyone wants to help out. Message me at diran@dirango.com To get on the list for launch, subscribe at www.checkmypics.com

mathattack 13y ago

I'm curious if request #5 actually ever generated revenue.

quadrangle 13y ago

The propaganda still present: "My original, copyright-protected work is here" Should be "My original, copyright-restricted work is here" "I don’t mean to be harsh, but photography is how I make my living." — implies that stopping sharing of his photographs is necessarily fundamental to living as a photographer (may be today, but this shouldn't be accepted as the only way our economy can work) "On top of being a copyright violation, the use of a potentially endangered insect to sell an insect-killing product is both inappropriate and offensive." Wow, yeah, but it's the use that's offensive, not so much the infringement. I would have sent this anyway, and if they kept using it, I'd make a public stink about it. "Such infringements are illegal, they waste my time, and they devalue my work." The first part is true, the second part is only because he chooses to waste his time, and the third part is completely wrong. It remains totally unclear whether these take-downs are actually benefiting the photographer. It is nice that he's human and reasonable, but there's still so many assumptions here.