Help / The Help Forum

Adam Lawrence    says:

Don't just request payment, send an invoice. Do you have any friends that have spent at least 1 day at a Law Firm? Time to get them to help draft a firm and fierce letter.
And since you've seen other examples of flickr photos that *may* have been used without prior permission, contact those photographers and possibly start a "stolen by hotelchatter.com" image pool together as a way of showing how widespread this problem is.
Best of luck!
Stay strong.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

The Searcher    says:

So how are you determining which of those images are being mis-used (aside from yours)?

The very first one I looked into, the view of the Sydney Opera House, I found here:
flickr.com/photos/33005380@N00/406002975/

Yes it's all rights reserved but the owner has a little blurb about "go to hotelchatter" right there in the description, making me think that maybe they approve of the use.

They seem to do most things correctly (flickr groups, etc) so maybe erring on the side of mistake and contacting them about your specific image is in order, before calling them out on unproven mis-use?
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

smcgee    says:

@ The Searcher First, you're right, they seem to do most things correctly, but if you keep scrolling down that page or search for other photos, multiple photographs have no apparent connection with HotelChatter (i.e., there was no mention of the website in the photo's description and they were not in the pool). I'll reword my original post to be a bit clearer.

Also note that the flickr account you link to appears to be that of the senior editor of Hotel Chatter (Juliana/Huliana). I would guess that she gave herself permission to use her own photos. If you look through the rest of her account, she blogs all of her photos at HotelChatter and Jaunted (they are sister sites).
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

Adam Lawrence    says:

@ The Searcher,
I too agree with giving them the benefit of the doubt, hence my "*may*" in decribing the other photos smcgee mentions.

@ smcgee,
Please do be sure to contact the rights holders of the suspect images for the sake of seeing if this is widespread, or a screw-up.

All in all I do have zero tolerance for the misuse of images as well as the concept of commercial sites using flickr as a 1 stop source for all of their photo stealing needs. But if they have a history of doing things the "right" way then I'll trade my piece of rebar in for a wiffle ball bat. ; )
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

smcgee    says:

Well, they've removed it and replaced it with from one in their pool (the right thing to do). I've left messages on 8-10 other photos and directed them here.

But I'm with you, Adam, on the zero tolerance policy. Flickr's library is now so thorough and well-indexed that its easy to find a great photo to grab. But how hard is it to ask first? I've freely given permission for similar commerical ventures (e.g., Schmap) and would have been happy to do the same here.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

The Searcher    says:

Hopefully the non-commercial thing was an accident, I guess it'll play out if it shows to be more wide-spread (and I could see now that some of the photos have credits and links to the flickr pages, showing the licenses. ) Considering they're crediting images and linking back to Flickr, and some of their staff are Flickr members, it bodes well that they have some respect for the rules here.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

C Ray Dancer    says:

They didn't ask permission from me, but they've linked back to my photo, which seems fair enough. I'm pretty much of the opinion that anything I put up on Flickr is vulnerable to this kind of thing. Anything I was really concerned about, I would put on a stock site or not at all.

That said, it would've been nice to be asked...
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

markj    says:

Hi:

Sorry smcgee. We immediately removed your photo and we have a HotelChatter/Flickr photo pool here:
www.flickr.com/groups/hotelchatter

We put up a photo from our pool.

We are hoping to get more and more photos in this pool to use on the site.

We always link back and give the great Flickr photogs some link love, exposure (Actually we know of at least one member who sold a photo to a magazine because it appeared on HotelChatter---cool!).

From now on we will be sure to send an email and ask Flickr members if they are ok with this as well.

That said we encourage everyone to drop their hotel photos in our photo pool so we don't have to rely on the terrible hotel sanctioned marketing photos.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

rileyroxx    says:

@ smcgee - Cheers for the heads up. I had no idea they'd used it. However they have linked it back to me which i guess is nice of them :).

It would have been nice to have been asked, i have had a few people ask me about some of my photo's which is always nice, as i'm in no way a professional.

Thankyou for pointing this out to me though :)
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

The Searcher    says:

markj:

Asking isn't always required with the proper CC license, but it does seem to go a long way to resolving most issues.

As long as you're aware that only those Creative Commons licensed images that specifically allow (or don't disallow) commercial uses are available for you to use, with or without asking.

If it says non-commercial, or all rights reserved, you definitely need to get the photographer's permission first.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

jason.s    says:

Just found one of my copyrighted images there as well... they did link to my stream, but I never received permission request and it's clearly marked (c). I realize this is life on the internet, but I sent them a note asking for explanation nonetheless.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

dh2    says:

I emailed HotelChatter.com regarding their use of this image flickr.com/photos/dh2/227922621/ -- will update here if I get a reply.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

The Searcher    says:

I know it's been a point of confusion, and certainly not justifying their use, but you may want to remove the "blog this " button from the top of your "all rights reserved" images. Some people may consider that tacit permission for blogging use, whether correct or not. And since you obviously don't want people to be blogging your image, why have the button there?
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

dh2    says:

Email reply from HotelChatter.com

Subject: Re: Copyright violation

Sorry that was a mistake. We should have asked.

What a great photo too.

All of our editors always link back and credit the site/user where the photo came from. Though in this case, it looks like they didn't do our normal photo credit and this photo is not CC. Regardless, we should always ask and that is our mistake.

I would be happy to put the name/link credit in there. Would that be ok? No matter, we should have asked. In the future we will be sure to do so.

Civilized Explorer    says:

All in all I do have zero tolerance for the misuse of images

smcgee    says:

@ The Searcher My question is where do you draw the line at "blogging"? Which websites are "blogs" and which are just sites? In my opinion, the HotelChatter site is not a blog. It is a hotel forum and referral source that is heavily supported by advertisements, and receives "referral fees" from matching buyers and sellers. See their Editoral Policies. But because they use dated posts, does that make them a blog, and thus not subject to copyright law?

Furthermore, a "link back" or credit does not absolve a copyright violation. A link back is required if the photo is hosted on flickr. But these photos are on HotelChatter's server. A link back is a nice courtesy, but it does not change the fact that they have violated copyright laws. I
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

The Searcher    says:

There's no distinction with a blog over whether or not it is commercial or not. Blog refers to a format, style of publishing, etc, which I think you could say the HotelChatter page follows. My point is simply that you allow the easy ability to blog, with a button right there, that could be mis-interpreted. You as well, seem to maybe misunderstand what blogging is, so you can see how confusion may develop.

Your second paragraph is my point, sorry if it was unclear. The issue of the Blog this button has been discussed elsewhere, so I didn't/don't want to go all over that again here. Simply put, whether or not there is confusion over the "blog this" button, the terms of blogging have nothing to do with the licenses of the images. Linking back to images hosted here are for Flickr's benefit, that has nothing to do with the permissions set for the image by the owner. The license overrides all.

It is simply a confusion that you may want to simplify by removing the button, since you seem to have a strong stance against any use of your images, and as I think I've demonstrated, the word "blog" has no bearing on commercial use or not.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

smcgee    says:

I don't mind if my photos are "blogged" by the proper parties. That's one of the reasons I've left the button in place, and why I've turned on CC licensing for my photos. To go even further, I've actually enabled printing on every single one of my photos for all flickr users. I like these features of flickr and realize that they come with risks. Sure, my photos might be incorporated onto other websites, stripped of my user name and I'll never know anything about it. Or printed and sold at a gallery under someone elses name (highly unlikely). But this was a case where I did find out about it, and I thought it was important to (1) educate this company who has an active flickr presence and (2) alert other flickr users about the situation.

But I think to say that the "blog this" button gives tacit approval for all parties to use my image in any medium that could potentially be deemed a blog is going too far. Mistakes will happen, and I'm really not that up in arms about this (HotelChatter did right by me within an hour or so of my original email), but it doesn't mean that I'm going to sit quietly when someone uses my photography for a profit and thinks that offering "link love" is enough. The simple fact is that copyright law trumps flickr's "blog this" button. Stewart has said so, and I think any US court would agree.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

The Searcher    says:

jeebus! Enough with misreading what I'm trying to say!

I'm trying to say that IT COULD BE CONSTRUED TO BE APPROVAL.

It IS NOT APPROVAL. I've said that like three times now.

What part of "The license overrides all" are you missing?
Or "If it says non-commercial, or all rights reserved, you definitely need to get the photographer's permission first."
Or "certainly not justifying their use" Or "whether or not there is confusion over the "blog this" button, the terms of blogging have nothing to do with the licenses of the images."

Regardless, my point about the blog button was directed at dh2, I mis-directed it at you in my past post there. dh2's images were all rights reserved, so why have a blog this button available at all? but you have CC licenses, so you have times and reasons for sharing, which is different, just a little at least.

So, to refresh. The presence of a blog this button might possibly maybe be a single potential reason that an entity might in good faith think they can blog an image in spite of the license. It is not an allowance, is not an excuse, is not an out, is not permission, is not a fluffy bunny, but may be in some small way a little teeny tiny indicator of a possible way to communicate with the entity, a tack an angle an emotional state a verbal dance style, before getting out the shotguns.

that's it. that's all. there's no more.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

livingearth2006 says:

I would think that to have a "blog this" button to be a direct invitation to "blog this". Images found on the web almost always find their way to other sites. In just in the same way music does.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

Adam Lawrence    says:

@ civilized explorer

to seriously address a cheeky question, i honestly don't consider my use of the 68 olympics protest picture to be a misuse. it's not on a coffee cup that i'm selling, or an ad for black gloves etc, it's out of respect.
however, if the ap stringer who shot the picture would like me to remove it i would certainly take his or her request very seriously.


(oh, and let's not forget peter norman, r.i.p.)
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

The Searcher    says:

oh, now I get the reference.

dunno, adam, the guy who shot the beginning of the rodney king riots, the truck driver getting pulled out of his cab, was screwed out of all sorts of revenue from stills taken from the video.

You're basically saying, if the photographer who owns the copyright to the image you're using for your icon, were to ever find OUT you're using it, you'd be happy to stop breaking the law and stealing from him.

got it. now it's clear. "zero tolerance". you were being sarcastic.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

Adam Lawrence    says:

this is getting *way* off topic, but unless i'm mistaken (certainly possible) the copyright is owned by the associated press, not an individual.
it's also one of the most famous iconic images of the 20th century.
my use of it as my flickr icon pic is purely out of respect for both the image itself, and the importance of the action it depicts.
do i have direct permission to use it? no.
is it illegal to do so? unclear, possibly i suppose.
does that make me slightly hypocritical? maybe.
*but*, i am certainly not using it in any manner that creates profit for myself, nor for that matter am i diminishing the images' current or future commercial exploitation value (to connect it to the truck driver beating video/stills incident).
life sure is interesting.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

The Searcher    says:

oh I dunno. Using the image to personify one Adam Lawrence may be considered as diminishing its profit potential. For instance, and not as a dig to you personally at all, but if it were misused as t-shirts for a white supremacist group, given out for free, you could see how that could damage the iconic nature of the image. As one of the "most famous iconic images of the 20th century", I'd imagine that would only make it more valuable and important to protect. That's the thing about "All Rights Reserved", it isn't supposed to be up to your interpretation.

at least, so I've seen you say.

[PS: maybe if you run it by the AP, see if they're ok with your use? you never know, and as back on topic here, at least you asked.]
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

Adam Lawrence    says:

@ The Searcher
With all due respect, yeah, you lost me with white supremacist group.

For everyone else, I now believe the photo in question was taken by John Dominis for Time/Life, not the AP.
Also, do as I say, not as I do.
And brush your teeth.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

The Searcher    says:

you lost me too, man. you lost me, too.

ha! just messin' with you. we're all hypocritical sometimes. I hope it doesn't bite me in the ass right when I'm trying to make the very point I'm personally violating, but hey, that's karma for ya!
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

Dr. Keats    says:

I was traumatised as a child when a karma ran over my dogma...
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

Civilized Explorer    says:

i honestly don't consider my use of the 68 olympics protest picture to be a misuse.