Pinching images from someone elses website can be expensive.

[Deleted member 59730]

http://www.swanturton.com/bulletin-487#.Vglsy87U6Hk

Describes a case where one company used images taken by the orner of a rival company for their website.

 

[OldWelshGuy]

This is why I always say 'ignoring it isn't an option'. if you ignore and it goes to court, then get ready to catch the book that will be thrown at you.

 

[beasty]

People on here often say
Just ignore it and hope they go away, which is about as dumb as advice can be

 

[MASSEY]

Well the letter i ignored from getty years ago went away pretty swiftly, image removed and i ignored their two correspondence. I don't think they had much of a leg to stand on, despite the image lacking presumably some sort of meta data, they did not know for sure that i hadn't bought a license from somewhere years ago, which is why i think they are taking punts.

If i was getty with all their money i would take someone to court for the 900 and odd quid they thought i would pay them. They didn't think they would win, clearly.

But it did teach me a lesson and i now buy all of my images from places like shutter at 5 quid a pop.

I have also been taking some of my own images... would love to find one land up on someone elses site ££££

Hopefully this doesn't end up as long as the other threads about image thefts!

 

[kezzahayles]

This is complex, images online are not often in black and white situation.

For a start, if I download an image from another site, or Google images, crop it, rename it and changed any meta data, then it's virtually untraceable unless somebody spots visually.

At that point, how on earth they going to go through the rigmarole of finding out if I have a license for it?

No obviously if it's their original image than they can prove it. But how can they prove that I knew about the copyright infringement, or that I didn't get it from a website that sold rights it didn't actually have.

It's a minefield, and the chances of getting any legal proceeding successfully finalised against you are pretty slim.

 

[Chris Ashdown]

This is complex, images online are not often in black and white situation.

For a start, if I download an image from another site, or Google images, crop it, rename it and changed any meta data, then it's virtually untraceable unless somebody spots visually.

Rubbish there are many ways to hide your proof of ownership

At that point, how on earth they going to go through the rigmarole of finding out if I have a license for it?

No obviously if it's their original image than they can prove it. But how can they prove that I knew about the copyright infringement, or that I didn't get it from a website that sold rights it didn't actually have.

They don't have to prove you knew you are guilty by using it

It's a minefield, and the chances of getting any legal proceeding successfully finalised against you are pretty slim.

 

[fisicx]

This is complex, images online are not often in black and white situation.

Wrong.

All images belong to someone. Unless you have permission to use, crop, edit an image you are in the wrong. There are now a lot of cases when copyright infringement has resulted in a fine.

 

[Karimbo]

People on here often say
Just ignore it and hope they go away, which is about as dumb as advice can be

some consumer threats you can, espeically when you know the company in question sends out bulk legal threats to individuals - nobody has resources to sue 10,000 individuals. But b2b - they can credit check you and have a fairly good idea of the money your business has, they know your net worth and will go after you if they know your business has assets to liquidate.

 

[Karimbo]

The bulk of copyright infringement gets a pass. If you're selling Apple's product, they probably won't care that you grabbed some photos of their products and used them in your site to sell their products.

But stealing the competitors photo - that's just asking for it. They probably knew about it, waited on the rival to use it for a long period of time and accumulate net assets and then SNAP!

 

[Steve Alphabet]

For my blogs I get some great copyright-free ones from http://pexels.com and https://picjumbo.com. Wikimedia is also worth checking...

 

[Alan]

This raises a question I have, if a web designer buys a stock image and uses that image on client website, then that is legitimate use of course. Now what happens when that client decides to have the website rebuilt, can the new web designer re-use that stock image?

 

[UKSBD]

This raises a question I have, if a web designer buys a stock image and uses that image on client website, then that is legitimate use of course. Now what happens when that client decides to have the website rebuilt, can the new web designer re-use that stock image?

I would think it depends on the licence

A lot of licences are per chair, so in theory the original designer should have a licence, the website owner have a licence and the new website designer have a licence.

 

[Alan]

True, the licence on bigstock (the stock image I use) says

"The work you produce with Content must be used for yourself, your direct employer, client, or customer, who must be the end user of your work. You agree to take all commercially reasonable steps to prevent third parties from duplicating any Content. If you become aware of any unauthorized duplication of any Bigstock Content please notify us via email at [email protected]."

So reading this I would think that the client stopped being the end user of the work when they got their site rebuilt.

However, there is no way that I can possibly know whether the next web designer is authorized (i.e. paid bigstock) or unauthorized duplication.

However as the web designer is the UK biggest and possibly worst web site and other directory company, perhaps I should assume they are authorized (not)

 

[Chris Ashdown]

Its nothing to do with any new designers its just the original person who brought the licence and his client he brought it for

If a new designer was then appointed say a year down the line he would only be working for the original client who had a licence to use it. But if the new designer was to sayuse a copy of the page to promote his work then it would not be covered by the licence and he could face penalties himself

 

[Alan]

Chris, that is exactly the sort of misunderstanding that people can get into.

The web designer (in general) doesn't buy it for the client, they obtain a licence to use it in the work they are producing for the client.

The client has the rights to use the 'work', i.e. the whole website, but doesn't actually own the rights to the individual image, so (at least my understand of Bigstock licence) they don't have th right to give the individual image to be used in a new work (of course if the new web designer is just tweaking the original work that would be ok )

 

[obscure]

Chris, that is exactly the sort of misunderstanding that people can get into.

The web designer (in general) doesn't buy it for the client, they obtain a licence to use it in the work they are producing for the client.

The client has the rights to use the 'work', i.e. the whole website, but doesn't actually own the rights to the individual image, so (at least my understand of Bigstock licence) they don't have th right to give the individual image to be used in a new work (of course if the new web designer is just tweaking the original work that would be ok )

This is complex, images online are not often in black and white situation.

For a start, if I download an image from another site, or Google images, crop it, rename it and changed any meta data, then it's virtually untraceable unless somebody spots visually.

At that point, how on earth they going to go through the rigmarole of finding out if I have a license for it?

So much nonsense in one post - it should carry a business health warning.

1. Images can be traced using tineye and google image search even if the metadata has been removed etc.
2. Lots of images are spotted by people who know the photographer.
3. Rigmarole? If I believe you are using an unlicensed image I ask you to produce the license. If you can't prove you licensed the image you are going to lose in court.

No obviously if it's their original image than they can prove it. But how can they prove that I knew about the copyright infringement, or that I didn't get it from a website that sold rights it didn't actually have.

Ignorance is no point of the law - They don't have to prove you knew. They just have to show you didn't have a license, you are still guilty of infringement and you still end up having to pay.

It's a minefield, and the chances of getting any legal proceeding successfully finalised against you are pretty slim.

Untrue. The UK now has a small claim IP court that is much cheaper and easier to use the chance of being prosecuted has gone up dramatically https://www.gov.uk/guidance/take-a-case-to-the-intellectual-property-enterprise-court.

http://www.epuk.org/news/infringer-who-originally-offered-150-forced-to-pay-20000-in-settlement
http://www.epuk.org/news/harlots-shame

 

[Alan]

@obscure for clarification, what was nonsense about my post? I believe my post reflects the T&C of bigstock.

 

[obscure]

Sorry Alan, I didn't mean to include your message in the quote. Seems I somehow multi-quoted by mistake.

 

[Alan]

Thanks

 

[UKSBD]

So much nonsense in one post - it should carry a business health warning.

1. Images can be traced using tineye and google image search even if the metadata has been removed etc.
2. Lots of images are spotted by people who know the photographer.
3. Rigmarole? If I believe you are using an unlicensed image I ask you to produce the license. If you can't prove you licensed the image you are going to lose in court.


Ignorance is no point of the law - They don't have to prove you knew. They just have to show you didn't have a license, you are still guilty of infringement and you still end up having to pay.


Untrue. The UK now has a small claim IP court that is much cheaper and easier to use the chance of being prosecuted has gone up dramatically https://www.gov.uk/guidance/take-a-case-to-the-intellectual-property-enterprise-court.

http://www.epuk.org/news/infringer-who-originally-offered-150-forced-to-pay-20000-in-settlement
http://www.epuk.org/news/harlots-shame

It's just not black and white though

Just one scenario.

You are a photographer, you have an employee, that employee uploads one of your images whilst under your employment.

Is the site that the image was uploaded to committed any offence when showing the image?

Does the photographer sue the website and then the website owner counter sue the photographer (employee was working on photographers behalf when uploading)?
Is the photographer held in account of what an employee does on their behalf?
Can the employee be held accountable by the website?
Can the employee be held accountable by the photographer?

 

[obscure]

It's just not black and white though

Just one scenario.

You are a photographer, you have an employee, that employee uploads one of your images whilst under your employment.

Is the site that the image was uploaded to committed any offence when showing the image?

Does the photographer sue the website and then the website owner counter sue the photographer (employee was working on photographers behalf when uploading)?
Is the photographer held in account of what an employee does on their behalf?
Can the employee be held accountable by the website?
Can the employee be held accountable by the photographer?

Totally black and white.
The employee is a representative of the company so no offence has been committed. The photographer would ask the site to remove the image. If they didn't he could file a DMCA take down notice and, if they still didn't, sue them. But that would be silly because they would just take it down.
The photographer would probably tell the assistant not to be an idiot again.

Making up overly complex hypothetical situations doesn't prove that a body of law is not black and white. Such situations are rare and in general copyright (just like most other bodies of law) is straight forward. The rare cases are what the courts are for.

 

[UKSBD]

Totally black and white.
The employee is a representative of the company so no offence has been committed.

If he is a representative of the company can he grant a licence?

The photographer would ask the site to remove the image.

Not debating this, would photographers try sue even if the image was removed though?

Making up overly complex hypothetical situations doesn't prove that a body of law is not black and white. Such situations are rare and in general copyright (just like most other bodies of law) is straight forward. The rare cases are what the courts are for.

Not overly complex or hypothetical at all.
The likes of Yell, Thompson, Freeindex, etc. all allow business owners to upload images.

Most directory submissions tend to be by people working for companies, what happens if the employee uploads an image the photographer didn't want uploaded, could the photographer sue?

Just one example
https://www.yell.com/biz/alan-collins-photography-gillingham-7633918/

Assuming that listing was added by someone who worked for the photographer.
Could the photographer sue Yell for using his images?

I'm not arguing, these are all genuine questions.

 

[Deleted member 252819]

In most cases, yes, the photographer owns their own images. It depends on the license the photographer has agreed with the client.

 

[UKSBD]

Yes, but my main question is;

If an employee of a photographer (whist under the photographers employment) grants someone a licence to use one of the photographers photos is the licence valid?

 

[Deleted member 252819]

[ Sorry, I think a few others replied before my reply posted ]

 

[obscure]

Yes, but my main question is;

If an employee of a photographer (whist under the photographers employment) grants someone a licence to use one of the photographers photos is the licence valid?

Can an employee negotiate a contract on behalf of their employee? Yes. Whether they should have done so is an internal company matter and doesn't alter the validity of the contract.

 

[UKSBD]

Can an employee negotiate a contract on behalf of their employee? Yes. Whether they should have done so is an internal company matter and doesn't alter the validity of the contract.

Thank you (I assume you meant "on behalf of their employer" though)

Does this mean, if an employee uploaded one of the photographers images to a website
that had in their terms that the person submitting the content is granting a licence, is the licence valid until any such time that the photographer revokes the licence?

 

[Jim Barker]

This is why I hate Pinterest and similar sites which promote the idea that it's perfectly OK to just lift images from the internet. I once sat in on a Facebook exchange between a fellow illustrator and a "graphic designer" who was adamant that it was perfectly OK to cruise the net for images and use them without permission. I regularly do Google Image searches on my illustrations and have one illo which is currently on over 200 websites, all without my permission and, of course, without payment.

 

[obscure]

Thank you (I assume you meant "on behalf of their employer" though)

Yep sorry for the typo.

Does this mean, if an employee uploaded one of the photographers images to a website
that had in their terms that the person submitting the content is granting a licence, is the licence valid until any such time that the photographer revokes the licence?

Whoops I made a mistake in my earlier post when I said that the Photographer might sue if they didn't remove the post - or at least misled. He might try and sue but would lose.

The license is a contract. The photographer/company can't just unilaterally cancel the contract. They could ask the web site to remove the image but the site has done nothing wrong by hosting it as a license was granted.

 

[DH Marketing]

Makerbook.net has all sorts of free resources including graphics and photos. There's just no need to use images without permission.

 

[UKSBD]

Yep sorry for the typo.


Whoops I made a mistake in my earlier post when I said that the Photographer might sue if they didn't remove the post - or at least misled. He might try and sue but would lose.

The license is a contract. The photographer/company can't just unilaterally cancel the contract. They could ask the web site to remove the image but the site has done nothing wrong by hosting it as a license was granted.

That's why I say it is not always black and white, and also shows how important it is to keep records, especially now image sharing is so easy.

Would this also apply if the person uploading the image wasn't a direct employee of the photographer but a person/company engaged by the photographer?

 

[zippy123]

hmm interesting. I have some images that my competition on ebay is using of mine.

could I do something about this ?

though it may be difficult for me to prove it was me that took the picture.

 

[Karimbo]

hmm interesting. I have some images that my competition on ebay is using of mine.

could I do something about this ?

though it may be difficult for me to prove it was me that took the picture.

if you cropped the image before you put it online, then you can easily prove you're the originator because you have the pre-crop version.

But unless photgraphy is your living I wouldn't waste time with it - you will have to pursue them through the courts or have very expensive solicitors who can presure them to settle out of court. Both methods being costly with time & money.

 

[Jim Barker]

That's why I usually put a watermark on anything I put up on the net.

 

[obscure]

That's why I say it is not always black and white, and also shows how important it is to keep records, especially now image sharing is so easy.

Sorry I still don't see what about it isn't black and white.

A person or entity that has the right to grant a license (whether because they own the copyright or represent an entity that does or got the right under a contractual agreement) can grant a license.

A person or entity that doesn't have that right, can't.

Would this also apply if the person uploading the image wasn't a direct employee of the photographer but a person/company engaged by the photographer?

the question is meaningless given that you didn't give any details of the terms of the engagement.

 

[obscure]

you will have to pursue them through the courts or have very expensive solicitors who can presure them to settle out of court. Both methods being costly with time & money.

This is no longer true in the UK as the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court has a small claims track for IP disputes with make it cheap and a lot easier to pursue smaller claims for things like copyright infringement.

 

[zippy123]

serves me right for not printmarking

 

[UKSBD]

Sorry I still don't see what about it isn't black and white.

Photographers say they will sue if they find one of their images being used when they haven't granted a licence.

Where it isn't black and white is, someone else may have granted the licence without the photographers knowledge

A person or entity that has the right to grant a license (whether because they own the copyright or represent an entity that does or got the right under a contractual agreement) can grant a license.

A person or entity that doesn't have that right, can't.

the question is meaningless given that you didn't give any details of the terms of the engagement.

The photographer may use an advertising agency, marketing agency, SEO company to promote the photographers work, if that agency then uses a photo in the promotional material has a valid licence been granted?

 

[MASSEY]

This is why I hate Pinterest and similar sites which promote the idea that it's perfectly OK to just lift images from the internet. I once sat in on a Facebook exchange between a fellow illustrator and a "graphic designer" who was adamant that it was perfectly OK to cruise the net for images and use them without permission. I regularly do Google Image searches on my illustrations and have one illo which is currently on over 200 websites, all without my permission and, of course, without payment.

This is no longer true in the UK as the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court has a small claims track for IP disputes with make it cheap and a lot easier to pursue smaller claims for things like copyright infringement.

So, obsure, you're saying that jim Barker is sitting on, using a modest figure, £40,000 that he never knew he had? just has to take them all to court to collect it?

 

[obscure]

Photographers say they will sue if they find one of their images being used when they haven't granted a licence.

Where it isn't black and white is, someone else may have granted the licence without the photographers knowledge.

I refer you to my previous answer....
"A person or entity that has the right to grant a license (whether because they own the copyright or represent an entity that does or got the right under a contractual agreement) can grant a license.

A person or entity that doesn't have that right, can't."

Either the "someone else" had the right to issue the license of they didn't. Once the photographer has ascertained whether the license is valid or not they take appropriate action - its common sense/black and white. Or were you perhaps assuming that the photographer would just see their image and immediately start suing someone without bothering to find out if they had a valid case?

[/quote]The photographer may use an advertising agency, marketing agency, SEO company to promote the photographers work, if that agency then uses a photo in the promotional material has a valid licence been granted?[/QUOTE]
The question is meaningless given that you still didn't give any details of the terms of the engagement.