Stolen Photos

I was just doing a google search on photos and discovered a photo gallery that has stolen a lot of my bird images from my website. I recognized other photographers work there too, so I wanted to alert others. Here's the URL: http://picasaweb.google.com/myrabluebird

I will be sending a complaint to Google about this infringement and I hope anyone else who is affected will too.

I found one of Jim DeWitt's images, I emailed him

Also there are birds in other gallerys , like fall.

I see David Hemming's great gray owl (it still has his name and copyright symbol right on the photo!) and Terry Sohl's gyrfalcons. I've found about 15 of my images so far. I think it's a safe bet that most of the bird images are lifted from other websites.

I found Terry's Great Grey Owl that was just in the discussion forum too

Well, this stinks. Just started looking through "Myra's" account, and have found Gyrfalcon, Great Gray, and Northern Hawk Owl photos of mine.

You can post comments on the photos. I'm putting online comments associated with each photo I find that's mine, pointing out that it's a stolen photo, and showing the link to my website where it was stolen from.

Each of the photos on my website has a copyright symbol and my name at the bottom. "Myra" was sure to trim each photo to cut that part off!!

Just browsed for a minute or two and already found a western screech owl pic of mine. Unbelievable.

That's absolutely rotten-- I just can't believe people can be so blatantly nasty. I hope you all noticed there's a "report abuse" button over to the right beside the gallery, and one of the reports you can make is concerning copyright abuse-- i.e. stolen images. I hope all of you affected will do this right away. That person's site should be immediately removed from there. [ETA: you need to click on a photo to see that gallery, and then the "report abuse" button is visible... and just what is it that people get out of doing this kind of thing? I just don't get it. How can they look in the mirror?] --Anna Lisa

"Myra" and Picasa Web is legally responsible for damages to all of you. I would suggest writing a strong letter to the company demanding that the images be removed as well as compensation. You may not get much, but a lesson has to be taught and learned.

Sorry for the double post, but I thought this was important enough to add as a comment rather than an edit.

I have disabled hot linking from my website. You may want to investigate whether or not your hosting company allows you to block hot linking. I realize this does not prevent screen printing etc, but it is a bit of help in making a case that you have tried to protect your images.

It is too bad that whoever has been taking the image didn't just contact the photographer and ask to use, or at least leave the copyright info in place on the image. Am I wrong in thinking that a lot of photographers wouldn't mind this at all? As long as they weren't selling the images in anyway or using them to market their business, I would just think of it as broader marketing of my images. It seems like this problem could have been avoided in large if "Myra" had just given credit to the photographers who's images he/she used.

With the internet being as central as it is to a photographers marketing/business plan it seems inevitable that images are going to get passed around. For me, as long as no one is making any money from the images and is giving credit to the photographer I have no problem with someone posting my image somwhere. That's just my opinion and I am interested in hearing others thoughts as I am a newbie to the photo biz and am curious what others think about this. Sorry to all those who had their work taken. Nate.

One thing for all you affected - you may want to ping Picasa Web to see if any of the images was printed/sold. I noticed that aspect of the site was enabled. Granted most of the images are thumbnail resolution, but it may still be interesting to see if "myra" was actively selling these images.

I just spotted some of Arnab Banerjee's in the Fall gallery. I'll send him a note.

None of mine yet, but my site has pretty good copy protection.

Everyone who has an image posted on the site needs to contact Google (Picasso's creators). Here is part of the Picasso licensing agreement, which basically says that if you post something on Picasso, Google gets to use it anyway they want.

"11. Content licence from you

11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This licence is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.

11.2 You agree that this licence includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services.

11.3 You understand that Google, in performing the required technical steps to provide the Services to our users, may (a) transmit or distribute your Content over various public networks and in various media; and (b) make such changes to your Content as are necessary to conform and adapt that Content to the technical requirements of connecting networks, devices, services or media. You agree that this licence shall permit Google to take these actions.

11.4 You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the above licence.
"

Sharon

Sharon, I read that too and sent that to Doug who started the thread.

That is like giving them free license to use any image you post on picasa to do what they want & lose income from that image.

That should be against the law, shouldn't it?

It's not against the law if they are your photos and you agree to the rules when creating an account and upload photos.

David, I am not a lawyer, and I don't pretend to be one on TV, but reading the terminology above makes it sound like if you post your images on Picasa, which is owned by Google, then Google has the right to "perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. "

Which in essence is giving them "Google" the right to use your images royalty free

I hope one of the NPN'ers who is a lawyer can clarify that.

I just talked to the owner of the photo gallery, she agreed to delete my photos. I informed her that there were other photographers whose photos should be deleted. We'll see if she does what is right. Anyone who wants her phone number can email me.

Lia, I am not a lawyer but having looked at this very hard when I first started to market my images. I think I can definitively say that yes, you are granting Google a perpetual royalty-free license.

Folks, for those of you with images there, I'd make sure they are removed from that site and that both Google and Picasa know that they don't have rights to them (and why!!).

Hey Doug...

The license "is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services" The royalty-free language is quite common amongst photo-sharing sites. These sites do not want to have to pay you a royalty to display your images.

For example, SmugMug's agreement states "grant SmugMug a perpetual, nonexclusive, royalty-free right to use, publish, distribute, reproduce, perform, adapt and display the Content on the Site, including the right to use the name that is submitted in connection with such Content."

Again, theses sites have to be able to do this in order to make copies for various sizes, for displaying, for backing up, for transmiting to other viewers computers, etc.

If anything I would have some concern with section 11.2 since the entire agreement states nothing with regard to defining "syndicate" or "syndicated services" - which when read could be any company/organization that has a business relationship with Google.

Hey Cindy, I tried to find her email address and couldn't. Any tips? Filling out the forms w/ google about copyright looks like it could be pretty time consuming. I'd rather have her take the photos down and perhaps let her know what I think about her photography.

It's down to two galleries right now. Perhaps she's moving elsewhere.

No galleries left now. Good.

Google's rights grab is the norm for online gallery hosting, not the exception. The only exception among the big-time hosts I've found is flickr (I check the "private" box when I need to upload one to that site for display in some online forums.) At least, in reading through their information, it looks like an exception.

This is why I pay a company to hosting company to my own website and have hot links prevented. The contract does not give image rights to anyone for any reason. If I want to have a few people see some sample images I reduce their size and email them to the people with appropriate copyright info listed.

Here are a couple of good explanation of both the Digital Copyright Act and NET.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NET_Act

I am not a lawyer, but this is how it was explained to me:
if original work is placed on the web and rights are not signed away (for example Picasso) then the owner retains all rights. The catch is that if it is on the web, it can be "stolen".

There is coding that makes it more difficult to "steal", but it is not possible to have something on the public web and it not be stolen.

So, be careful "out there"!

Sharon

So if you want it on the internet but don't want ti stolen slap a big "COPYRIGHT" label right across the body of the image. It might not look as pretty but there is no easy way it can be removed like it can when you place it at the bottom of the image as one of the above did. There are ways to disable the ability to copy an image although there probably are ways that a good hacker can use to get around it, but I doubtr most hackers are out to steal and sell photos--LJP

There are ways to disable the ability to copy an image although there probably are ways that a good hacker can use to get around it...

No need to get around it, since the "Print Screen" button works just as well. At that point, the actual marking on the image, and its ease of removal, is all you've got. That and the fact that it's likely a small size in the first place.

Here are a couple of good explanation of both the Digital Copyright Act and NET.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NET_Act

I am not a lawyer, but this is how it was explained to me:
if original work is placed on the web and rights are not signed away (for example Picasso) then the owner retains all rights. The catch is that if it is on the web, it can be "stolen".

There is coding that makes it more difficult to "steal", but it is not possible to have something on the public web and it not be stolen.

So, be careful "out there"!

Sharon