For the paranoid amongst us!

[ABERS]

An interesting piece on the BBC web site

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10118823.stm

Never knowingly having had a photograph stolen and not taking photographs for anything other than pleasure I always find this a little confusing. I post pictures for other people to look at and enjoy or otherwise, I always put the © mark on them in the details page when adding information about the image, but whether this gives me any protection from thievery or misuse is never utmost in my mind.

On the occasions when I've been asked if an image can be used for some purpose or other, I've acceded to that request with pleasure feeling somewhat flattered that it has been deemed good enough to illustrate some point or other. However I have a sneaking feeling that if someone had used the picture without permission, and I became aware of it, I would still get that 'flattered' feeling.

[picsfor]

I've had requests from 'bodies' to use 2 of my pictures in the last few years and have given permission with no charge, but with a provision that i get accredited.
As you say i was pleased that some one thought my picture was good enough for their needs.

That said, were i to find my picture being used without my permission then i might get a tad annoyed according to the circumstances as follows:

They may be using it for some thing i disapprove of - we all have causes or campaigns we do not want to be associated with. I would never allow any of my pictures to be used with an election campaign because to me it implies i've given support for the party using the picture.

If they are making a healthy profit because of my picture - then i would expect some consideration to come my way. I'm not saying i would be demanding a fortune, but if some one had used 12 of my pictures to produce a calender (without my knowledge) which then became a top seller,  then i would think i had been exploited.

If you've gone to the effort of embedding copyright info into the pictures xmp file - then the least they can do is take time to drop you a line. You haven't gone to the effort of including the contact info just for it to be ignored...

[Moses]

I often supply the BBC Nature website with images free of charge, and they always give me a mention in the text and credit the image to me, which is great
But I have had images used by other sites without asking me or getting credit for the image, and this really angers me.
Last year a local tourist site 'stole' 3 images and used them on thier site, I was not amused and had very harsh words with them, they were even going to use them in a magazine!
After the threat of legal action the images were removed, but I did have a request a few months later to use the images again.
Can anyone guess what my reply was?

[Jonathan]

Yet again I can't believe they waste my license fee on such a shoddy excuse for journalism.

Let me summarise that article.

1. There didn't used to be copyright and people wondered if it would be a good idea
2. Stealing music doesn't feel like theft
3. Magnum are really clever people
4. That bloke who took the picture of the guy with the tank still makes money out of it
5. Any image theft is the "industry"'s fault (huh?)
6. Cutting pics out of a magazine is theft (um, no it's not....)
7. Some bloke reckons there are loads of pictures in the world and only some should be copyright

Once again, your license fee hard at work keeping the incompetent and ill informed in work.

I make my living from selling pictures.  In a similar way to the BBC making their living selling TV (oh no, wait a minute, some of their money comes from a government handout...).  I bet they ain't "flattered" when some guy in a back room in Peckham makes dodgy copies of Attenborough's latest epic.

Anybody else think this "article" has been planted by somebody wanting to drum up support for the nasty nasty DEBill?  For intelligent debate on the subject start with http://stop43.org.uk/

[ABERS]

Anybody else think this "article" has been planted by somebody wanting to drum up support for the nasty nasty DEBill?  For intelligent debate on the subject start with http://stop43.org.uk/

I refer you to the title of the thread!

[Eileen]

  Follow this link for another story which could encourage paranoia.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-20005439-265.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20

[top totty]

Well I had a couple of pics pinched off ephotzine site. The person then took off the border with my name in and then tried to pass them off as their own on another site, unfortunatley for them I was also on there but under a different username, fell on it by chance. Brought it to the sites notice and had a right ding dong in the forum before finally getting the person to own up to it. I wasn't flattered....I was bloody annoyed, the person could have have had the pics had they asked, but not to pass off as their work.

[irv_b]

I don't know if this will help anyone but just the other day I was reading this

http://paulophotoblog.blogspot.com/

maybe it worth it just to see .........
I haven't tried it, but as it has been said, I would feel quite " chuffed" if someone used one of my images, as long as it was not for their personal (financial) gain. Maybe I would feel different if it photography was my only source income

[Jonathan]

Chortle....



That's mine at the top and a "copy" at the bottom.  Just shows it wasn't really an original idea....

ETA: I also just tried it with some images that I know are being used with permission on other sites.  No hits....

[picsfor]

Definitely a scene 'done to death' as the saying goes.
But then what does constitute an 'original' picture?

I think i count my last original picture as that of my youngest daughter at the ripe old age of 2 minutes in her mums arms.
That was 25 years ago and having cameras in the delivery room was definitely not "knowingly" allowed.
I was lucky the nurses 'were busy' whilst i whipped out the camera.