What to do when your photos are used w/o permission

[CameraGeek 0]

I am really sick of this, so pardon the venting.

For about the fourth time since I began taking freefall images in the early 1990's, I have discovered a web site using them without permission.

Now this time, I know how they got them, and what *really* pisses me off is they are people I know. Two of the images are of my wife.

So - not only have they violated copyright laws, they also are using my wife's photo for business purposes without a signed release....

I have asked, then demanded, action on their part. Having been down this road before, I know what comes next.

Just have to ask the thoughts of others on this subject....

[skinnyshrek 0]

wouldn't be ASC by any chance??????????

http://www.skydivethefarm.com

do you realize that when you critisize people you dont know over the internet, you become part of a growing society of twats? ARE YOU ONE OF THEM?

[FreeflyGoat 0]

If they are using the pictures to make money, then you are right to ask for either compensation or to take the picture down. If it is not being used for profit, then, so what.

_________________________
goat
derka jerka bukkake jihad

[dragon2 2]

Quote

If they are using the pictures to make money, then you are right to ask for either compensation or to take the picture down. If it is not being used for profit, then, so what.

According to you if they're not being used for profit it's okay?!

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[AndyMan 7]

You're not the first person to get annoyed with this particular operation.

Personally, having the pictures pulled down would not be good enough. I'd want financial compensation for them being published in the first place.

AW told me that he believed copyright disapears once a photo hits the internet, a stance that is obviously incorrect. I mention this only because he believes (or at least claims) that he's not breaking any laws.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[newshooter12 0]

the only thing that i think may snag you... at least up here there is a thing called "work for hire" which depending on the terms of your agreement, contract or waiver the person that paid is the owner if the images. so everything I shoot at work is property of the station & it's parent company dispite the fact that it came from me. the same goes for when i've shot a few freelance gigs the one that employed me retained the rights to the work.
i don't want to be playing devil's advocate, but just make you aware of another possible arguement. i keep tight rein on my personal photos... then again i didn't mind when my friend wanted to use a photo in his band's first CD so long as he gave me photo credit.
matt

[CameraGeek 0]

I checked this just before posting last night - copyright law in the US does not require you to say it is copyrighted, nor label it such, or even submit it for a copyright. The instant you shoot it the work is yours and copyrighted. Period.

The copyright violation is easy to chase - in this case, so is unatuhorized use of a person's image without a signed release.

The law is clearly being broken - and what actually pisses me off (and a previous post blows my mind - why care? BECASUE IT IS MY PHOTO duh) is that in the past I alolowed use of the images with proper credit. Credit was given.

All I ask for is credit - don't care about their damned money. Is that too much to ask?

Apparently so - and I have chosen this one to take the gloves off and play ball as nasty as they want to.

If they can produce a written permission (they can't) this would be a moot point. But copyright's are easy to enforce and that's what I plan to pursue.

AM - you know what I am talking about obviously. I urge you to be more diligent than I have been. Your work is yours and you should guard it jealously. This is one thing the internet and digital photos bring as a danger....

There - I feel better already....

[YahooLV 0]

Provide originals, and SUE!

http://www.curtisglennphotography.com

[ScottMcC 0]

I'm pretty sure we've been down this road before...but something I've started doing is putting a little "Photo: Scott McCusker" tag on the bottom of all my photos. Sure, it can be cropped/airbrushed with photoshop, but at least it takes some effort.

[AndyMan 7]

Me too. I put "AndyCam!" or "AndyCam.org" on the lower corner of all my internet published photos. Example here: http://www.skydivecsc.com/images_updates/IMG_2431-s.jpg.

Also, you'll never see me distributing large digital files. A lot of my work gets sent out over the DZ's email updates and the images there are always saved with a very high level of compression, so that there's visible artifacting. The images as they go out to the public are rarely fit for print.

I know that won't save me from a DZO who's too much of an ass to ask for permission, but at least I know they won't end up in Sport Illustrated without me getting rich.



_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[EDYDO 0]

Whether or not your copyright is still valid depends on how you have protected your images. There are some things you can do to put your work into the "Public Domain." There is more in Federal Supplement 46, page 471. I do not have access to a copy, nor do I know if it is relevant.

It is possible that putting your work on the internet in high resolution form could give anyone "public domain" permission. You need to pay a copyright lawyer for a one time consultation, then you can tell the rest of us what he said.

Ed

[jeiber 0]

Quote

I checked this just before posting last night - copyright law in the US does not require you to say it is copyrighted, nor label it such, or even submit it for a copyright. The instant you shoot it the work is yours and copyrighted. Period.

You're right, but there are a couple things to consider. Alot of DZ's have a 'photography release' in the waiver basically saying that any pictures or video taken can be used by the DZ. Although this is primarily to cover the people who's picture was taken, the wording might screw you, the photographer, if they were sneaky about it.

As far as the picture being taken of your wife, no 'model release' is needed if the picture is being used for 'news/media' purposes. That's why newspapers and tv stations don't need releases from people to publish news stories. Regardless, the waiver may have screwed you here too...

Lastly, I'm not a lawyer, but being a pro am photographer, I've dealth with model releases and copyright issues before.

Would you mind PMing me the DZ if you're not comfortable posting it to warn others?

Good luck... sucks when people steal your work - even worse when they claim credit...

Jeff

Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring!

[CameraGeek 0]

Very true - except...

The DZ in question was not even in business when the photos were shot.

In fact, none of the photos they stole were even shot at that airport!

A model release is required here because - 1) I have never signed a waiver at that DZ, nor has my wife and 2) They are using her likeness without permission to promote their business. I own the photos in question - and the web site they were on was mine (literally years ago) was covered with copyright notices, as were the original photos. They have been edited.

And it's not just my work they stole, by the way....

[jeiber 0]

Based on what you're saying, they're clearly in the wrong. You could probably take them to small claims court, and just do the paperwork yourself....

Good luck!

Jeff

Shhh... you hear that sound? That's the sound of nobody caring!