 |
Dude - that sucks... Putting photos on the internet comes with a serious risk... sorry you got ripped off.
I love flickr, but the way its set up almost encourages this... all the tag searches, groups, API linking etc. They are great ways to promote your photo, but not everyone is honest.
Unless you're in Belgium - you're going to have a hard time suing them.
Sorry to hear about this.
Originally posted 23 months ago.
(
permalink
)
gravityroom edited this topic 23 months ago.
|
 |
It is a NEWSpaper, you say? And your photos pertain to that NEWS?
Posted 23 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Jayel, are you trying to say that just because his photos are relevant to the news he should expect them to be taken and used without his consent?
Posted 23 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
@Jayel, if a staffer at "De Morgen" had covered Burning Man, would they have paid him or her?
@fabianmohr: Sorry to hear about this. It seems to be happening more and more lately.
I wish there was an easy solution to this, but I don't see one, as long as there are unscrupulous people out there...
Posted 23 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
What's irritating is that a newspaper especially should understand copyright a little better than that.
Posted 23 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
That some clueless young person who is used to that both movies and music is 'free' on the internet (like it or not - a lot of young people unfortunately have really no concept or moral about things like these anymore) and uses it on his personal webpage is one thing.
But when a commercial business - especially a newspaper who knows very well what the rules for using pictures are - one should not let that pass without taking action.
I really think you should follow up this case and maybe contact someone higher up in the administration of the newspaper if you don't get a proper answer and the payment that is rightfully yours.
Posted 23 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
@Runte T: That's an important point, in deed. We're not talking about some guy "lending" pics for private purposes. I've had this a couple of times and it can always be solved smoothly by a brief email exchange. But "De Morgen" is a major news operation, they're a business. And I'm a freelance photographer, publishing my pics under copyright.
Posted 23 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
have you considered "breaking " the news of their transgression to one of their rival newspapers in Belgium? That might get them moving on the fair royalties!
good luck
Posted 23 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
you have a law suite on your hands there my friend, if he took a pic without asking and gave no credits or royalties, sew them! and make it public, they wont be long responding :)
Posted 23 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
The last two respondents have the right idea. If I were you, I'd start with a note to someone higher up in the administration (if you can find them) hinting that perhaps their rivals might be interested to hear about their attitude to copyright...
Posted 23 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Do not threaten them with releasing the story to their competitors - it's an empty threat, since doing so leaves you open to suits for libel and defamation, and practically speaking, threats will get you precisely nowhere as they know they are perfectly able to wait you out.
I'd be surprised if you were able to get any sort of payment from them, since removing material immediately after such a complaint is generally viewed as acting in good faith. I think your remedies are more on the order of a published apology and explanation unless you can demonstrate damages.
If you want to complain and don't receive any response from the paper themselves, there's a self-regulatory industry body for the Flemish press in Belgium who you may be able to contact as a further step.
Originally posted 23 months ago.
(
permalink
)
matt (a group admin) edited this topic 23 months ago.
|
 |
yeah, i really made out great when the BBC used an image of mine to promote their "Valley of the Dolls"....as in, we are very sorry...but go ahead and sue if you have a problem....
www.flickr.com/photos/shadowplay/36333636/
Posted 23 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
This is why I put a watermark. People hate them, and they always say "it's very distracting". Well, lawsuits are very distracting.
These "big corps" should have their pants sued off; they really should know better than to break laws and rules like that. The fact that they do it simply encourages this very behaviour.
Like I say in frenglish, "il souce".
Posted 23 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Don't worry, their (newspapers) days are numbered. The blogosphere will see to that.
Posted 23 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Well, it is in Belgium.
But if it is was in the US, the newspaper would be protected under the Fair Use Doctrine.
Posted 23 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I am really tired of this "fair use" nonsense!
We are talking about a commercial enterprise and and the photos mentioned are "all rights reserved". What is this term worth if anybody claims they would act with "fair use" ??
And don't forget, this paper did not even give any credits.
Though it is probably not the prior problem here, Flickr should at least work harder on their rss feeds. As long as the feeds include all photos independently of their individual credtis flickr is just a free basket for everyone.
btw, I am concerned, too. An Argentinian online magazine took 3 of my "all rights reserved" pics with credits but no confirmation. I wrote them but got no reply. I changed one of these pics in flickr, only to see, they had managed to download the image before and are posting it now from their own server.
Should I be thankful for mentioning my name?
Fabian,
sorry to hear this. I think the only chance here is the advice of Matt, the self-regulatory industry body for the Flemish press in Belgium.
Good Luck !!
Posted 23 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Jayel Aheram has no idea what fair use is. You can ignore him.
Posted 23 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
SOFAM is now informed about the De Morgen case.
I guess the problem is that a few publishers, newspapers and magazines think they can get away with copyright violations.
No matter what the result is in this case with De Morgen - I'm convinced we have to make stealing pics as painful as possible for media and other businesses. I'm afraid it's the only language they understand.
We have some very powerful tools in our hands to generate high voltage buzz about copyright violations.
In the end it would have been much cheaper for De Morgen to pay decent royalities, compared to the PR damage in Google search results and Flickr threads.
Actually, this should be common sense for MSM. But they repeat the same mistakes over and over again. It's bizarre.
Thank you all for your advice and encouragement.
Originally posted 23 months ago.
(
permalink
)
fabianmohr edited this topic 23 months ago.
|
 |
Fabian, I can't find any of your pictures in their Burning Man Blog - have they taken them down?
The article says they have a whole team of Belgians out there, and given the general copyright sensitivity newspaper companies have (I work for one, although in Holland and not in Belgium, but it can't be all that different) it seems very unlikely they'd use stolen pictures.
I suppose it's not possible they just happened to take more or less the same photo's at the same time - a not unlikely occurence at a festival, surely? The way it seems to be happening in Oahu :)?
Posted 23 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Jaydot: Yes, they took them down after they realized that we were aware of their copyright violation. See my first post in this thread. We managed to screenshot 17 pics on De Morgen servers before they depublished them all (it was a matter of minutes). 4 of them can still be seen embedded in the De Morgen popups.
Here's my Burning Man set on Flickr:
flickr.com/photos/fabianmohr/sets/851567/
And here are the screenshots we took from the De Morgen website:
static.flickr.com/93/232717105_8e4c5b4605_o.gif
static.flickr.com/91/232717062_c6d3205148_o.gif
static.flickr.com/84/232717014_3238885b93_o.gif
static.flickr.com/93/232716974_6a674289bd_o.gif
static.flickr.com/86/232714603_8bc5091527_o.gif
static.flickr.com/81/232717753_8b4792578c_o.gif
static.flickr.com/93/232717703_49bcb0be22_o.gif
static.flickr.com/88/232717673_62d7de23ee_o.gif
static.flickr.com/83/232717634_fbb024a8de_o.gif
static.flickr.com/87/232717611_19be3bfab7_o.gif
static.flickr.com/92/232717576_c90eb4f9d8_o.gif
static.flickr.com/95/232717543_f767c57cb4_o.gif
static.flickr.com/83/232717356_2778b0ac87_o.gif
static.flickr.com/86/232717335_1475598579_o.gif
static.flickr.com/95/232717301_ca1e105a99_o.gif
static.flickr.com/94/232717274_bb59b68526_o.gif
static.flickr.com/91/232717244_2df2e247de_o.gif
static.flickr.com/92/232717218_384e3ed855_o.gif
static.flickr.com/84/232717195_39e90cd7e9_o.gif
static.flickr.com/91/232717170_9b5ff32178_o.gif
static.flickr.com/79/232717140_74343f8e8f_o.gif
>>it seems very unlikely they'd use stolen pictures
Jaydot, as we've seen above, it's not "unlikely". It is a simple fact.
>> I suppose it's not possible they just happened to take more or less the same photo's at the same time
Well, my pics and the pics they used aren't "more or less the same photo's at the same time". They are, as everybody can see, the same (aka "stolen pics").
Posted 23 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Before this thread devolves into posts filled with ad hominem attacks, I did say that the doctrine does not apply to Belgium. (Different country, different continent, different laws, and different rights.)
Posted 23 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I recently changed my options so that only Friends and Family can see my photos at all sizes, and only certain people in my contact list are listed as Friends/Family.
Another way without watermark is to simply not post your largest image, so that there is very little someone can do with your photo.
Posted 23 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Before this thread devolves into posts filled with ad hominem attacks, I did say that the doctrine does not apply to Belgium. (Different country, different continent, different laws, and different rights.)
You're right it doesn't apply in Belgium, but that doesn't make you right about fair use being a general exemption for commercial news operations in the US. It's not, and that's immediately clear if you actually go through the four criteria of fair use. In that sense I'd say that the claim "Jayel Aheram has no idea what fair use is" isn't so much an ad hominem attack as a simple statement of fact.
Originally posted 23 months ago.
(
permalink
)
matt (a group admin) edited this topic 23 months ago.
|
|
Ahh, it was in their pop-up "fotospecials".
In fact, it seems most of the photos in these fotospecials are taken from Flickr, although they do now mention "copyright 2004" (or 2005) and the photographers' name. With your photos they didn't do that?
A very loose interpretation of "photo sharing site".
I find this astonishing. If a webmaster of one of our newspapers were to do something like this, he'd be in serious trouble. I work in the legal department, and I'd be making it...
Posted 23 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Jaydot: No, they didn't credit me as the photographer nore did they refer to any copyright status coming with the pics. This has now changed in the Burning Man special of De Morgen - guess why.
Posted 23 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Tsk.
Belgians.
Well, at least you got them to add credits to the photos they're still using.
Posted 23 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I had a similar problem last year. Some people on here said that I should not pursue them, but I did, and it worked out well:
hexod.us/a/2005/09/got_a_couple_ph.html
hexod.us/a/2005/10/la_weekly_conta.html
Even though it is a pain in the ass, we always have to try to get justice served. And you just might get a check out of the whole thing.
Posted 23 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Matt: You are telling me that a newspaper using a FEW of the first poster's images regarding a news event is NOT fair use? If a newspaper (within the United States) is allowed to publish snippets of text from copyrighted works in a news report, I would think that a newspaper would be able to also publish a couple of photos from the first poster's photostream.
Never mind the fact that it was informational (Monster Comm v. Turner Broadcasting) and their use of the copyrighted material was related to a newsworthy event (Italian Book v. American Broadcasting). I do not need to remind people that the mere fact that the uninfringing act was commercial does not automatically make it a copyright infringement or non-Fair Use (Kelly v. Arriba, Mattel v. MCA Inc - my favorite).
Again, if this happened in the United States.
EDIT:
Originally posted 23 months ago.
(
permalink
)
Jayel Aheram edited this topic 23 months ago.
|
|
Gentlemen, I would appreciate if we could keep this thread concentrated on the "De Morgen" case.
Posted 23 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Oops! You don't have permission to view this photo.
Posted 23 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Mr. Fabianmohr: My apologies. II was unfairly attacked, I think, and I felt the need to defend Fair Use (and me in the process).
Sara Richer: It is a non-photo. I already got NIPSAed once and it was not fun, so I put most non-photo images as private.
Posted 23 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Jayel: they don't have to be private to avoid NIPSA'ing. Just mark it as 'offensive' yourself. That keeps it out of tag searches and such which is enough.
Posted 23 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
A whole photo is not a "snippet".
Posted 23 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
Folks, I wanted to let you know that "De Morgen" has now answered to my email. They're sorry - and they will pay decent royalities. So this case has come to a good end - and I appreciate that "De Morgen" explained how the pictures ended up on their website. People are people and we all make mistakes, don't we.
Thank you all for the good advice that came up in this thread. It pays to pursue copyright issues.
Posted 23 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
good job fabian. that's the way things should be. thanks for doing the right thing.
Posted 23 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Nice to hear a good ending!
Posted 23 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
That is very good to hear.
My faith in the Belgian newspaper industry is somewhat restored.
Good for you, Fabian!
Posted 23 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
very good news!
thanks for sharing
Posted 23 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Da kann man nur sagen: Aufs Maul! Im juristischen Sinne natürlich;)!! Hoffe Du konntest die Sache regeln!
Posted 10 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Muy bien! See? I does pay to pursue your rights. Yes, sometimes peple make mistakes, and sometimes people are just plain mean, but never lie down and just assume that nothing can be done so you will do nothing. Im so glad this came out goo dn the end! Although, even if the newspaper had done nothing, making a little noise about it still would have been - good in the end - as it would have at least raised awareness. And yes...Im thrilled they have apoligised to you!
@Jayel - this is not an attack, but the point made above is pretty true, a photo is not a snippet of a copyrighted work - its the whole thing and while I wont claim to be an expert on Fair Use, I know that within a company especially a big one - Even if something like that did fall under fair use - credit would be given, if only to keep themselves safe from possible lawsuits/slander/and or bad PR (Well, in a good company) Again, Im not attempting to attack here, but I find my photos used in a newspaper - I am not going to assume that is ok just because its newsworthy. Especially If I am not credited. And Especially if the newspaper costs money to buy -aka they are making money off that product.
Posted 10 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
I think it's always a good idea to take a copy of the offending web page (or site) when copyright infringement occurs. Then send it along with your invoice.
Posted 10 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
It's always to fun to read the contributions to these threads when absurd claims are presented as true fact and everyone gets terribly confused.
Jayel, you're an idiot. Absurd claim or true fact ?
Posted 10 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
|
I would suggest that it's also always fun to read the date stamps as well, realise that people may have changed their opinions in the intervening 13 months, and that personal attacks are probably best left aside in such circumstances until one knows what the current situation is.
Posted 10 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
 |
Has Jayel changed his opinion on fair use?
Posted 10 months ago.
(
permalink
)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
FlickrCentral /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to FlickrCentral discussion threads
Flickr Blog |
About Flickr |
Terms of Use |
Your Privacy |
Copyright/IP Policy | Report Abuse
|
Deutsch
|
English
|
Español
|
Français
|
|
Italiano
|
Português
Copyright © 2008 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Save to del.icio.us
