Image Reuse and Copyright Violation Aid 1

[DBtheFox]

I recently came across an 'artist' on deviantART/Side 7 who had taken the liberty of using one of my friend's photographs, without permission, as a background on one of her computer-drawn images, posting it as her own work and under her copyright. I reported the image to both sites, and both were very helpful in removing the image. This is where my problem becomes more difficult.

I went though the gallery and discovered that she had done the same thing with 17 different photographs and digital renderings which she found, I assume, by Google. The person in question does not believe that they did anything wrong, and refuses to remove the images with these prirated copyrighted images.

I have spent an hour on google looking for some of these, but am having difficulty finding exact URL's to the images she has used. My question is: How far should I persue this issue? I was highly offended for my friend and can only imagine an equal outrage by the other uncredited photographers/artists who had their work pirated.
If I do persue trying to report these, where can I go for aid in finding the orignal owners/locations of these stolen images?

Thank you all for your help.

 

[Dimandja]

Congratulations in your enforcement of copyright laws.

But you also say "where can I go for aid in finding the orignal owners/locations of these stolen images?". You forgot to explain how you *know* these other images are stolen? I would assume that you know the rightful owners before catching the thief?

Dimandja

 

[DBtheFox]

That is the issue. Thus far I have found two images which were taken without permission from websites and have been removed from her galleries. This combined with the fact that she says pubically that she does not do photography nor can she provide any proof that she has permission to use these photos has me suspicious.

I do not know, that is why I am wondering how far I should take this, and why I am requesting help.

 

[pmonett]

I don't see that there is anything you can do. You say yourself you do not know the original "owners" of the pictures. So you cannot prove that there is indeed breach of copyright.
The fact that the website owner states that she does not have permission to post photos does not ipso facto mean that there is copyright violation.

Pascal.

 

[lionelhill]

I think you've done all you can and should. Even if you track down the original copyright owners, the offence is against them, not against you, and it's up to them to decide what to do about it. Some people might even be flattered to see their work aired on someone else's site. But it's nice to know there's a few people out there who do care about copyright.

 

[jalbino]

There are many misconceptions about copyright which confuse and underinform many who do not deal with copyright issues on a regular basis.

DBtheFox is admirable for ferreting out the copyright infringement, but ultimately the photographer friend has to do the "policing" of the infringement. Unfortunately, all too many photographers--including far too many professional photographers--do not value their copyrights highly and do not actively pursue infringements.

Under the U.S. Copyright act of 1976, *all* works are copyright at the instance of fixation in a tangible form. That means that any of us who take a casual snapshot owns the copyright to that snapshot at the instant the shutter is pressed.

But from a practical standpoint, copyright isn't even worth a thimbleful of sour spit unless it is *registered* with the Copyright Office of the U.S. Library of Congress. That's because only *registered* copyrights have the full force of powerful enforcement behind them, including statutory damages of up to $150,000 per infringement and additional attorney's fees.

One of the things I do is professional photography and digital imaging, and I regularly register all of my images--it isn't difficult to do, and costs only $30 per registration--but "unpublished" images can be bulk-registered on CD/DVD so literally thousands of images can be registered at one time/one fee.

pmonnett said "The fact that the website owner states that she does not have permission to post photos does not ipso facto mean that there is copyright violation." Actually, that is *not* true--the fact the website owner made that statement *IS* *proof* of copyright infringement, whether or not the infringed image is registered. However, without registration no Intellectual Property (IP) lawyer would touch the case, so in essense, the infringer is home-free.

One of the best sites to learn more about copyright is right at the Libary of Congress copyright info site <

http://www.copyright.gov/>

-- it contains just about all the necessary information.

Professional artists' groups--especially photographers' groups--have lots of info on copyright as well, including simple procedures on how to easily and quickly register one's work.

If anyone thinks it would be worthwhile, I suppose I could write up an FAQ on the subject and post it.

John A.

 

[Dimandja]

John, that's illuminating.

 

[lionelhill]

Thanks, jalbino, for an excelent summary. I think, though, being very pedantic, you might be wrong on one point, which is that this lady's failure to know she has permission means that a copyright violation has definitely taken place. Firstly, presumably some images are so old since fixation that copyright doesn't exist. You can copy cave-paintings as much as you like. Secondly, it's possible for an author to grant universal permission to copy for ever, freely, and without any obligation to pass on the statement that permission has been granted. In this case no copyright infringement takes place, even if the person who's doing the copying is unaware that they're not breaking the law!

You've made a very serious point about photographers. Any one getting married should check very carefully about ownership of negatives should their photographer go out of business. You can be held to ransom for your own wedding photos by the receiver...

 

[ChrisHunt]

My understanding is that wedding photographers typically retain the copyright on their (your) pictures. It keeps the up-front cost down, because they can make money selling copies to all the friends & relatives.

If you want a digital copy of your pics, with the right to copy/redistribute them, it's going to cost (maybe a lot) extra up-front.

-- Chris Hunt

http://www.mcgonagall-online.org.uk

http://www.napitalia.org.uk

http://www.leicesteryha.org.uk

 

[Kjonnnn]

Usually wedding photographers own the negatives, but you own the "copyright." Meaning, they don't have ownership rights to do as they please with your pics, but since they own the negatives you have to come to them for quality reprints. However, you'd be free to reproduce any prints YOU'VE purchased from them (although it would probably be at a lesser quality since they have the negatives). Of course, this is void if a written contract has wording to the contrary.