ShipSpotting.com
Login: Lost Password? SIGN UP
Ship Photo Search
Advanced Search
Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
Author Topic: Making money from free photo's  (Read 17016 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Captain Ted
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,972



View Profile WWW
« Reply #15 on: August 11, 2015, 02:39:00 pm »

put it this way
if those pics he sells are a problem for us at Spotter,,,then we don,t have a problem
Report to moderator   Logged

NOW!!!,,,if we could get rid of the sailors,,how safe shipping would be !!!!!!!!
Robbie
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,162


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: August 11, 2015, 10:27:40 pm »

the link below is the first image i came across from his listings. it is a copy of one of Chris Howell's images taken in Bluff. The item description does not mention him as the photographer at all.
Let me put it this way then. Say you fly to Singapore, then spend 70USD an hour (total 4 hours) to be taken out to the anchorage to photograph ships. Add the cost of accommodation etc then you decide to upload the images to here to share them with other enthusiasts. How would you feel if someone is selling them for 2GBP per photo?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/rp14216-Danish-Reefer-New-Zealand-Reefer-photo-6x4-/390769643892?hash=item5afbaf9174

Regards Robbie
Report to moderator   Logged
Allan RO
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,617


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: August 12, 2015, 06:30:25 am »

Robbie

You are absolutely correct, they look identical.   At least with my shot of Buffalo, there are differences and I am certain it is not mine, although the photographer must have been standing almost where I was but perhaps on another day.   Certainly looks like a copyright infringement with the reefer, but what can Chris do about.   If he asks for it to be removed, there are almost certainly many more in the guy's catalogue, and who has the time to trawl through the whole lot?    It is a great problem, but once a photo is in the public domain, any scumbag can nick it for whatever reason.

Ships Monthly used my shot of Kerisnel in an article on Brittany Ferries, no acknowledgment or photo credit - they even got the port details wrong which was quite amusing.

Allan

Report to moderator   Logged
DEREK SANDS
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 15,292


taken in Holland 2014


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: August 12, 2015, 07:39:50 am »

Hi Allan,

You are right, even if we pursue him he will not desist for long.

As for Ships Monthly they did the same to me twice, in fact a long time contributor of the magazine lifted a shot off here and used it in an article without any creditation.
I no longer contribute to the magazine even though the Editor apologised the article writer could not be bothered.

best regards

Derek
Report to moderator   Logged

peter j. fitzpatrick
Home away from home
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 341

piraeus,perama and elevsina


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: August 12, 2015, 08:10:53 am »

Gents
The only way to stop this person selling our photos is for each of us to buy some prints and then leave negative feedback on his account
E bay will then remove him as a bad seller
It may cost us a small amount of money but if needs must it's the right way to handle this
Regards
Peter
Report to moderator   Logged
csaba
Just can't stay away
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 79


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: August 12, 2015, 03:01:34 pm »

Could somebody please explain the meaning of "public domain" vs "copyright"? If I have a photo on shipspotting and have a copyright on it my understanding is that without my permission it can't be sold by a third party. What does "public domain" refers to in this case? Is it the website?
Thanks...
Report to moderator   Logged
tarbyonline
Just popping in

Offline Offline

Posts: 5


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: August 12, 2015, 04:53:21 pm »

I have also came across this seller - he appears to be selling copies of postcards as photographs as well.  Regarding copyright, by right permission has to be obtained from the original copyright owner (i.e. the photographer) before any reproduction - unless the copyright owner has specifically waived their copyright, through publishing under a creative commons licence for example or giving you specific permission.  This includes publishing to different websites as well as printing, never mind reselling the work!

My understanding is that anything which is copyrighted cannot enter the public domain unless the copyright holder specifically assigns their work to the public domain, or until 70 years after the death of the copyright holder.  So long as the image is posted online with a copyright notice, then it is copyrighted.  However, what do you do about it?  Once one person copies it to somewhere else (without a copyright notice) then whats to stop someone else claiming no knowledge of the copyright?
Report to moderator   Logged
woody-iow
Just popping in

Offline Offline

Posts: 11


View Profile WWW
« Reply #22 on: August 12, 2015, 04:58:59 pm »

I have just been notified of this discussion by Malcolm Cranfield . Yes I sell photographs from this site but they are all with the photographers consent , for which I have written permission . Apart from here I also get images from the large number of collections I have bought over time and ones from these with no copyright photographers name on the back are also reproduced .
I have not taken any images from here where I have not had the consent to do so . You have mentioned Chris Howells New Zealand Reefer , I can only assume that this was reproduced from one of the photos I have bought in the past which have no details on it , if he wants me to remove it I will do so .
I hope this clarifies my position , if anyone sees images for which they have not given permission , let me know and I will remove them from sale .

Regarding Peters suggestion of buying photos and then leaving negative feedback for the sole reason of getting at me would cause them to be reported for incorrect use and could therefore resort in them getting banned .
Report to moderator   Logged
tarbyonline
Just popping in

Offline Offline

Posts: 5


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: August 12, 2015, 05:03:22 pm »

I have just been notified of this discussion by Malcolm Cranfield . Yes I sell photographs from this site but they are all with the photographers consent , for which I have written permission . Apart from here I also get images from the large number of collections I have bought over time and ones from these with no copyright photographers name on the back are also reproduced .
I have not taken any images from here where I have not had the consent to do so . You have mentioned Chris Howells New Zealand Reefer , I can only assume that this was reproduced from one of the photos I have bought in the past which have no details on it , if he wants me to remove it I will do so .
I hope this clarifies my position , if anyone sees images for which they have not given permission , let me know and I will remove them from sale .

Regarding Peters suggestion of buying photos and then leaving negative feedback for the sole reason of getting at me would cause them to be reported for incorrect use and could therefore resort in them getting banned .
Thanks for the clarification - I can buy with piece of mind then Smiley
Report to moderator   Logged
ChasB46
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 840


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: August 12, 2015, 05:48:48 pm »

To Woody-iow , the fact thast you have acquired photos/ postcards with no copyright info on them does not exonerate you or the "supplier" from breaking the law or give you licence to print them. They are still (c) of the originator (unless he /she has given permission). You cannot assume permissioon is granted. There is no need for the copyright holder to add any marking / watermark to their creation. It is assumed to be their property at the instant of the camera button click.
See: the "Berne Convention 1886" and the "Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988" .. copyright arises automatically, no formalities such as registration or copyright marks are required.
There is no formal registration procedure for copyright; as long as your work qualifies for copyright by being original, it obtains protection as soon as it is in a permanent or fixed form. In UK law, originality is defined as using your own skill, labour, judgement and effort. In other words, what this means is that the work must not be copied from another work; it should originate from the author.
Then there arises (c) protection in other countries. However, signatories to the Berne Convention treat the (c) and recognise the copyright of works of authors as if from other signatory countries in the same way as it would recognise the copyright of its own nationals. This means that UK copyright law will apply to a work published or copied in the UK, although it may have originated in France.
If you want to use a piece of work that is still in copyright, you will need to seek permission from the copyright holder; acknowledging the author is also not enough. It is  assumed a work is (c) unless there is written evidence to prove otherwise or time has elapsed (ie 70 years after death of originator)
I have photos purchased in the past from Skyphotos and kindly donated from companies such as Esso, BP, Shell over 50 years ago. I would be in breach of (c) if I loaded them on to Shipspotting as would Shipspotting if they were displayed; no money would have changed hands. The fact that I bought some does not confer on me any copyright.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2015, 05:58:01 pm by ChasB46 » Report to moderator   Logged
peter j. fitzpatrick
Home away from home
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 341

piraeus,perama and elevsina


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: August 12, 2015, 07:01:13 pm »

It's a difficult situation to be in
As woody has said he has the permission to sell photos on e bay and maybe some photo may be replicated from original negatives then there should not be a problem
I like my own photos to be seen IF my permission has been asked and granted I have no problem
Woody Isle of Wight I have purchased photos from you in the past and I have no problem with buying from you provided the permission to re produce the images has been given by the original photographer
As I said it's difficult to prove otherwise
Peter
Report to moderator   Logged
ChasB46
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 840


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: August 12, 2015, 08:04:53 pm »

Owning original negatives does not give anyone automatic copyright to copy. eg The rights are retained by the photographer unless the photographer waives them. They may have been waived by contract to the large company who hired the photographer, but they weren't waived to you. The company may even have thrown them out but the (c) is still held by the photographer unless you have specific grant of use from him/her. Owning the negative/ photo is not owning the intellectual property. Also remember breaking (c) law is not just being sued by someone for a few 's.  Its also a criminal offence with the option of prison and a criminal record. If its a one off mistake? then an amicable arrangement could be sought privately, however running a business without delving into copyright law (which would be expected) could be more serious. Its not just the monetary gain but making a bad judgement/ assumption that the (c) has been waived can be enough for criminal law. Note, we are talking of copying ie scanning/ photographing an original of the originators work, and/or a copy done by someone else of that original work and selling it (or even giving it away). It might even be a postcard you bought but that does not mean you can copy it. The onus is on the copier and if there is the slightest doubt re waiving of the copyright then the fallback/assumed position is that the (c) has not been waived. Re my previous entry, I mentioned having photos/postcards given to me by BP for example (childhood pestering) and I could sell those but that does not confer the right on anyone else, on buying them, to copy those items. The (c) is still retained by the photographer even though they were paid by BP to produce them.
Report to moderator   Logged
davidships
Webmaster
Top Poster
*****
Online Online

Posts: 1,911



View Profile
« Reply #27 on: August 12, 2015, 08:51:33 pm »

Csaba asked
Quote
Could somebody please explain the meaning of "public domain" vs "copyright"? If I have a photo on shipspotting and have a copyright on it my understanding is that without my permission it can't be sold by a third party. What does "public domain" refers to in this case? Is it the website?
In essence an image would be "public domain" if it is free from copyright restriction either because the period of copyright has expired (photographer's death + 70 years) or it has been released from copyright control by the rights owner or by specific law.  It has nothing to do with whether you can find it on the net, published in a book or sold as a postcard.  Any photographer may choose to release their photos from copyright control but cannot be assumed to have done so unless there is clear statement to that effect.

So far as a selling of photographs on eBay is concerned, in practice there is no copyright implication in the sale of pre-existing prints, regardless of origin or whether the copyright status is known, though they should be accurately described - provided the seller is not aware they come from an illegal source.  A small low-res image as required by eBay would not be considered an infringement.  

However, the reproduction of images for sale is a different matter; there the onus is on the seller to make every reasonable effort to ensure that the image is free from copyright or that he/she has permission from the rights holder to reproduce it. Just looking at the back of a print would certainly not constitute "every reasonable effort".  That said, if proper effort is made to identify and contact the originators of prints, negatives or slides (that would include searching online or in relevant publications for the same image, and contacting known likely originators), and that effort is duly recorded, it is doubtful whether any action for damages from breach of copyright would be successful (though further reproduction would of course not be permitted without specific permission).

Reproduction of images in these circumstances cannot give rise to any new copyright and the seller cannot claim any (unless specifically assigned by the originator, who then has no further interest in the image).  For that reason, the overlaying of images on eBay with a spurious copyright claim might well be considered fraudulent.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2015, 09:03:38 pm by davidships » Report to moderator   Logged
ChasB46
Top Poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 840


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: August 12, 2015, 09:20:25 pm »

And how many people give up/waive their copyright? I expect you can count them on one hand. I have been asked if a photo of mine could be used in a book or advertising medium. Generally granted for a fee or for free. However, my permission to use does the picture does not give any copyright rights and I do not have to specifically say I retain the copyright. That is assumed. I do however have to specifically say that I waive the right to the copyright. Not that I would. A nice little earner for a no win ,no fee solicitor outfit?
In my childhood "begging days" one USA company actually went out and took a photo specifically for me of a dredger.A one-off, but that did not give me any copyright rights to reproduce.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2015, 09:29:55 pm by ChasB46 » Report to moderator   Logged
davidships
Webmaster
Top Poster
*****
Online Online

Posts: 1,911



View Profile
« Reply #29 on: August 12, 2015, 11:19:23 pm »

Quote
And how many people give up/waive their copyright? I expect you can count them on one hand.
Well, there are over 27 million media files (images, sound and video) on Wikimedia Commons.  Of course some are expired copyright or other public domain images, but the majority are not. None of them require any permission from the creator to use or modify, and the question of payment does not arise.  With the exception of the limited use of copyright images under "fair use" laws, all the images on Wikipedia are free of copyright restrictions (some require an attribution, but that is all). See:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
and the licensing basis is explained here
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Choosing_a_license

Also many Flickr users follow the same principles voluntarily.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.053 seconds with 20 queries.
Copyright © 2010 All rights reserved