Copyright issue again - interesting court ruling / law case

[polsteam]

Copyright issue is here again.

This time it is mainly because of an interesting law case regarding the photos posted onto and "freely available" on a social (community) website, which is based on the principle of "sharing" content (principle basically similar to the one used in Shipspotting).


If you see the photo in media that you suspect that may have been published without asking the author for permission - just try to find the original source of photo and let the author know...


The Copyright issue comes back again and again. Thieves do not allow to forget about the problem.

Recently quite popular in the media (for obvious reasons) were photographs of the Baltic Ace...  Many cases of publication of these photos were the cases of Copyright infringement.

Also recently I have discovered that even one well known international human rights organization used a photo from Shipspotting not asking the Author for permission and not even providing the author's name / source of photo in credit byline... (in some local language websites of this organization the name of the author was provided, but the photo was used without permission, in other language versions the photo appeared even without author's name in byline). So the right to own, private property (including Copyrights) is not one of the basic human rights?...


Some people just do not care (there is nothing wrong with that, but their case should not be spread over on all users of Shipspotting and voiced as "normal attitude" and "normal practice"). Others(majority - I suppose) _do care_ whether their photos are used / published elsewhere without asking the author for permission or not.

This is not about "being greedy".
Or if it is, then it is not the author to be dubbed "greedy".
"Greedy" is the one (commercial entity, such as news outlet) who uses photo without paying for it, and benefits from it (by providing own users with valuable content and attracting users / readers).

Most of us do shipspotting and ship photography for pleasure, as a hobby. Some of us might be rich and do not care. But there are very many among us (including myself), for whom the cost of travel to spotting and vantage points, as well as the cost of (even not extremely high-end) camera is significant in home budget and comes with some kind of effort of sacrifice (besides used time and devotion).

If someone can afford and wishes to offer his work free of charge to anyone - that's OK, but this is not the "normal" pattern acceptable to most of us (and should not be publicized as such, especially as those who propagate such attitude are simply wrong in law terms and thus, they mislead others by suggesting that someone should not fight for his rights).
And if our hobby comes at some sacrifice (eg. spending on photo cameras or travel to spotting places) it is even more NOT justified, reasonable, rational, sensible to allow media (news outlets, press agencies) to distribute, redistribute or publish your work (they are not offering their services and publications free of charge after all, they do it for payment - subscription or forcing you to be bothered by adverts).


 - - - - - - - -


"When Haiti was devastated by an earthquake in early 2010, not many professional-quality photos of the disaster were immediately available."

>>> When news agency or outlet suddenly needs a photo of the named, individual ship (because it has just been in accident), not many professional-quality photos are immediately available...
One of the fast and easy ways to get one is to find and grab it from the Website like Shipspotting.com ora MarineTraffic.com or from private gallery or photoblog of an individual ship enthusiast.

>>> Photographs from Haiti earthquake aftermath "distributed" by the author on Twitter (and retwitted by someone else, but this is not much important for the core of this case) were grabbed and used by news agency and subsequently - published by numerous news outlets...

>>> The situation of photographs posted on Shipspotting or MarineTraffic is pretty much the same (in law terms), as this is the case with Twitter.
Both Shipspotting and Twitter are "social Internet websites" and posting a photo on any of them does not mean that Shipspotting or Twitter has to pay the author for publishing this photo.
Photographer makes the photo "freely available", but this does not mean in any way that the author loses his Copyrights by doing so.

>>> it is also worth noting, that...

"Twitter has an evolving set of rules for how ecosystem partners can interact with your Content. These rules exist to enable an open ecosystem with your rights in mind. But what

[Jean Hemond]

 Thank you for posting this Polsteam!
Your comments are up to the point and major.
I have right now a very similar issue for a photo posted  ( removed here and with large watermark added on flickr). The small watermark was removed and a very wide major media publication ensued via Getty Images, not as important as the Morel case but nearly. I wait for it to be solved to my satisfaction. That before going to court my lawyers tell me they would like to get the publicity.
I would like to know what are the quantums implied by the rulings.
I found it could imply  up to 120 000 000$.
I wish I would have known two months ago!
I now hope they refuse to pay my invoice or simply try to negociate.
I would simply contact this lawyer.
It is well on the way of being solved to my satisfaction but two months later!
It would have taken a few years if I went to a legal dispute. And I had clear and documented  situation.

[Cornelia Klier]

Hello, the same again and again. And we all know it is not right.

BUT WE CAN NOT DO ANYTHING AGAINST but JUST HAVE A RANT and try not to loose good mood for doing the hobby shipspotting.

I had such case here too:
http://forum.shipspotting.com/index.php/topic,11404.msg61200.html#msg61200

I wrote to them, there was no answer. They also have not taken the photo off the site. It is still there. As you can read other members wrote there, too. Since I didn`t hear anything from them, nor the others did, I think it is now COMMON that any company takes any photo they want and they simply don't give a shit BECAUSE THEY CAN !!!!!

And really nothing WE can do against, just watch them doing. I have not yet had anyone coming up with a useful idea other than the usual rather stupid "blame the victim" reactions. 

[Jean Hemond]

Hi Cornelia. They live by publicity so one should placard them on forums!

Also I think I might be now very appropriate and timely for photographers to initiate a  start-up businesses of copyrights bounty hunters with both legal and web expertise.

[Captain Ted]

The main problem might not even be to detect on the web a copyright infringement much bigger problem is the pursuing of the same. It cost a lot of money to have a lawyer for it, unless it is a real big international news agency etc,, then they smell money, but for small infringements there is virtually only a small chance to resolve such matters ?

Am I mistaken with my view ?

[miraflores]

2 years ago the company Crystal Pool took 3 of my fotos and placed them on their website.
I wrote them several eMail to Helsinki, Antwerp, London, but no answer.
Than I made sreenshots from the website, prepared the fotos, created a subsite of my website and uploaded them onto the site instead of the original fotos.

http://i50.tinypic.com/210acsy.jpg

I have approx. 500 - 700 visitors per day.

Then I sent Crystal the link of my site and gave them aknowledge what I have done, they were really upset and told me to report it to the Helsinki Criminal Police.
But they didn't and so I left the "fotos" nearly 1 year on my website, they will never take a foto illegally again.

In 2009 a german company from Leer also took 1 foto and removed my watermark, with the help of a lawyer the had to pay 560.-

[Kelvin Davies]

Good man!
Well done.
Kelvin

[Ship's Cat]

Good for you Juergen.

I don't like them but I have taken to placing a watermark on my photos, having seen ones of mine taken and reproduced elsewhere with no request to do so and no acknowledgement of the source. If people can't be bothered to email me and ask - and an email takes next to no time and costs nothing, plus, if asked I am likely to say yes as long as my name goes on or next to the photo - then at least put the url of my website on it.
Watermarks are not pretty but I try and place mine where it doesn't detract too badly from the photo but can't be easily cropped out and will be annoying to try and remove by cloning. That won't stop a really determined thief I suppose, but will annoy a more casual one.

Personally, I don't seek to make money from my photos but it's the principle of the thing.

[David Meare]

I was sorry for an Internet friend who'd spent years building a collection of photos and reminiscences from his early years in East Africa, and then created a large and fascinating web site to contain them. He discovered that the government of his childhood country of residence had raided his web site to create one of their own. They simply ignored his protestations when he objected.

I have had a minor experience myself where someone has lifted a version of my photo of the USNS Card and posted it on Flickr, claiming to be the photographer. He made no bones about the photo being taken from the London Valour and even supplied a link to the ex LOF employees web site as extra background material. He has many thousands of photos on Flickr and I suspect he thinks it is for just posting anything that takes his fancy. I couldn't find any photos that looked as though he might have taken them himself but I didn't check all the 17,026 in his collection.

I know I could have demanded that Flickr remove it but I preferred to add a comment to his post pointing out his deception or misunderstanding. Do have a look and feel free to add comments of your own.

I don't know which site he lifted it off as I have given a few permission to use it, and they all do so acknowledging me as the owner. My comments in the post explain my feelings on the matter.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/16118167@N04/7387123642/in/set-72157626069189128/

[Jean Hemond]

Anybody tried this organization?
https://www.imagerights.com/index.php
They look OK!

[Cornelia Klier]

This is only for the US it seems

f photography is your business - and whether you choose to use ImageRights or not - we implore you to register your works with the US Copyright Office. Regardless of your country of citizenship or residency, this is your #1 weapon when it comes to defending your copyright rights and negotiating settlements with infringers in the US. If you choose to do so, ImageRights will manage the registration process for you.

[polsteam]

And really nothing WE can do against, just watch them doing. I have not yet had anyone coming up with a useful idea other than the usual rather stupid "blame the victim" reactions.  

The above mentioned attitude ("nothing we can do, just watch them doing") is just the one that enables more instances of photo thefts and makes the life of thieves easy.

Of course I understand there are some "helpless" cases. But these should not make us giving up in each individual next case.

Even if in five cases our reaction does not bring results, but it brings result in the fifth case - it is still worth reacting (and right to do so).

[Captain Ted]

Cornelia
Copyrights are world wide and once you prove your pictures as yours they are world wide protected. Those guys work for sure world wide, they are business minded and why I (the customer) should join them when they look only in the US,,They certainly know that too one
should think

[Kelvin Davies]

I know I will be in for some ear ache for this but here goes anyway:
This site must be held at least partly responsible for some copyright infringements as a result of the very strict policy of absolutely forbidding watermarks.
I have suggested it before (was pretty much told to shut up) but why not allow watermarks? Some have argued they don't want watermarks as it spoils their enjoyment of viewing the picture(s). My suggestion that it is only a moment's effort to email the poster to ask for a clean copy was laughed out of court.
Is it time for a rethink or should we just settle down and watch more and more of these copyright issues being flagged?

[Kelvin Davies]

Ken, you make my point for me.
It is only permitted to place a watermark in the corner of a photo. Just the job for someone who wants to remove a watermark without spoiling the image of the ship.
And item 3.3 makes the point again; it is forbidden to place a watermark anywhere on the picture of a vessel.
It is a green flag for those who want to copy photographs with no fear of retribution.
I have asked before (and I think I remember who replied) but I shall ask again;
What is wrong with placing a notice that non-watermarked copies can be had from the original poster via an email request?
Cheer, Kelvin