Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Are we all to be ripped off?

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

mikehit
mikehit  46108 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
1 May 2013 - 3:49 PM


Quote: It will be interesting to see what protection Alamy will give to its contributors. If it is insufficient to stop theft of images, Alamy may as well shut down its business now.


Alamy need do no more than they are already because images are easy to take as it is - this new law does not change level of protection, it changes the balance of rights between someone using an image and the person whose image it is. If the picture is on Alamy then the owner is traceable and it is not an orphan work - if Alamy want to keep their business going they would tell the enquirer whose image it is, or act as honest broker to sell the image (and in that respect nothing changes). If a company doesn't ask to use the image, then they have not done due diligence.

Last Modified By mikehit at 1 May 2013 - 3:49 PM
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
1 May 2013 - 3:49 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

keith selmes
1 May 2013 - 4:05 PM

For Alamy, it really depends how much they are doing to protect their stock.
Getty have acquired a Rotweiler reputation for going after infringers, but I haven't heard so much about Alamy or other agencies.

e.g.
http://meronbareket.com/getty-images-demand/
http://www.ryanhealy.com/getty-images-extortion-letter/

lemmy
lemmy  71762 forum posts United Kingdom
1 May 2013 - 4:08 PM


Quote: Does the Alamy web site count as a 'Public Place'? It is available to anybody who signs up, photographer or purchaser so I wonder does the signing up then make it a private place?

You cannot download usable pictures from Alamy unless you pay. So it is a public place in the same way as is a shop with a security guard who stops you leaving unless you have paid.

Is someone puts a usable pictures on a web site with no gateway, the image is open to theft in the same way that a shop with no security guard is. Most people will, in fact pay because most are inherently honest. But there are enough dishonest ones to make you think twice.

For a few years I did moving cartoons for the Telegraph online student pages and afterwards displayed them on my web site . I used to occasionally find someone with one of of my cartoons on their site but with no acknowledgement and in some cases attributing them to themselves. I had a form email threatening legal action but it was actually toothless. How would I sue someone in Chicago? What recompense could I expect to get from such a talent free petty thief? I console myself with the thought that there is no need to punish some people, being who they are is punishment enough.

The truth is, if you put work in a public place people can rip you off. You can either not do it or learn to live with it. I make decent money from my cartoons and pictures so I write off the occasional theft in the same way that a shop must with an occasional shoplifter.

I'm not complacent, just resigned Sad

keith selmes
1 May 2013 - 4:30 PM


Quote: I make decent money from my cartoons and pictures so I write off the occasional theft in the same way that a shop must with an occasional shoplifter.

sounds realistic, it's not how many people steal that counts, it's how much money you make. annoying but arguably viable.

Eviscera
Eviscera  81096 forum posts United Kingdom149 Constructive Critique Points
1 May 2013 - 7:03 PM

yep.

saw , this

and this

keith selmes
2 May 2013 - 12:02 PM

Checking further, I did eventually some notes from someone who tested reverse image searches, and found they don't always work. Also that small changes to an image will throw them off. I was a bit surprised by that, as Google seems to find anything even vaguely similar. Haven't found anything more definitive though.

Trouble is this topic is like conspiracy theories at the moment, there is so much BS flying about, it's hard to locate anyone who actually knows what they're talking about.

thewilliam
2 May 2013 - 5:13 PM


Quote: I make decent money from my cartoons and pictures so I write off the occasional theft in the same way that a shop must with an occasional shoplifter.

I'm not complacent, just resigned Sad

A shopkeeper has to balance the cost of "shrinkage" against the cost of security. It can't be easy to gauge the scale of theft because there's no empty space on the shelf when an image is stolen.

keithh
keithh  1022734 forum posts Wallis and Futuna29 Constructive Critique Points
2 May 2013 - 6:03 PM


Quote: yep.

saw , this

and this

Me too.....and asked the question and now the work has vanished.

keithh
keithh  1022734 forum posts Wallis and Futuna29 Constructive Critique Points
2 May 2013 - 7:38 PM

So here's one for you.

Here we have photographers again battening down the hatches on people using images, so where do photographers themselves stand on 'borrowing' images to add to their own.

Textures, composites, digital (cough) art are very often created using images on loan. A flock of birds here, a moon there, a wall, a floor, a cracking wall, an old tv, all right clicked and moulded to fit a new work.

Is this OK?

Nick_w
Nick_w e2 Member 73803 forum postsNick_w vcard England99 Constructive Critique Points
2 May 2013 - 8:26 PM

For me Keith when I do a composite, all the bits are my own images, part of the fun is collecting the base images to fit a pre-visualised image.

That said if someone uses images that are available to use (eg from Deviant art) I haven't a problem, provided the original photographer explicitly says they are free to use.

(I should add the first one I ever did was from images from DA, and I gave credit at the time, just in case someone chips in Wink )

Last Modified By Nick_w at 2 May 2013 - 8:28 PM
saltireblue
saltireblue Site Moderator 43572 forum postssaltireblue vcard Norway23 Constructive Critique Points
2 May 2013 - 8:28 PM

There's a world of difference between using / combining stock images, textures et al and using them in a multi-layer image and taking a whole single image and digitally tweaking it and passing it off as your own digital art image work.

Malc

keithh
keithh  1022734 forum posts Wallis and Futuna29 Constructive Critique Points
2 May 2013 - 8:53 PM

Not what I'm talking about Nick.

How can it be OK, Malc, surely theft of an image is theft?

Ade_Osman
Ade_Osman e2 Member 114484 forum postsAde_Osman vcard England36 Constructive Critique Points
2 May 2013 - 8:57 PM

I can safely say all my images are of my own and not borrowed from anyone either in part or whole Smile That doesn't mean they're any good mind Sad

keithh
keithh  1022734 forum posts Wallis and Futuna29 Constructive Critique Points
2 May 2013 - 9:02 PM

Oh ffs Wink

I'm not asking for lists of people who use their own, I'm asking what people think of works....and there are plenty....that don't.

Nick_w
Nick_w e2 Member 73803 forum postsNick_w vcard England99 Constructive Critique Points
2 May 2013 - 9:09 PM

Ok then, for me a stollen image is a stollen image, whether its used on its own or a composite.

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.