This AM I was reviewing my webstats and noticed a trend that implied image theft. Within a few clicks I found the violation and promptly initiated action to have my illegally-used images to be removed.
I got thinking afterwards and wondered if there's an online list of websites that regularly steal images and/or violate copyright. I wouldn't be surprised if there is, but haven't encountered it yet myself. If anyone is aware of one, please let me (and all of us) know.
If there isn't such a resource, I could easily add such a list to my website and maintain it. I'm thinking it would be very handy for nature photographers to go the list and quickly check if their images are being stolen. My initial thoughts are that I would like to limit the list of violators to those absconding with images from nature photographers only, otherwise the I'm sure the list would likely become massive in no time.
Thoughts and feedback?
Cheers...
Brad
PS: I already have a mental list going of how violators would be reported and the list of conditions whereby violators could "clear their record" and be removed from the list. But suggestions will be gladly accepted.
PS2: This idea is protected by copyright and the patent is pending. Anyone who steals the idea and implements it before me (especially if they build a subscription-based model) will be frowned at.
It's generally not the sites that violate your copyright but the users of those sites. The site owner is obligated to remove your content once you notify them and established your ownership. As long as they do that they meet their legal obligations and listing them as a violator may actually give them a case against you.
What value? A convenient means of finding and checking websites that habitually violate copyright through the theft of images. To my mind it would be a valuable resource for nature photographers - i.e., a useful service that would be simple and easy to maintain.
Please explain your sentence:
It's generally not the sites that violate your copyright but the users of those sites.
I assume you're referring to websites that offer hosting and/or pseudo-hosting of blogs and/or personalized content of subscribers and/or members but just want confirmation (such as Facebook or blogger.com, etc).
RE: Violators having a case against me. Fear of reprisal from exposing habitual violators of copyright won't keep me up at night worrying.
If my own logs are any indication, the most prominent source of unauthorized links come from discussion forums, social networking sites, and personal blogs. I rarely come across anyone using a remotely-linked image on a commercial site.
How will listing those sites make finding the violations any more convenient than checking your own logs? I would think it will actually be harder to search dozens (hundreds?) of separate sites, often not even knowing what to search for.
Many nature photographers either don't have access to their web logs and/or web stats or simply don't use them. It won't make it much more convenient for ME, but it will for many other nature photographers. Secondarily it would serve as subtle means of reprimand for violators - I'm assuming that most owners of websites wouldn't want to appear on the list or, alternately, would want to get off the list as soon as possible (through policing themselves and/or members more effectively).
Any listings would be annotated with carefully worded descriptions of the violations, i.e., written in a manner to encourage them to comply with copyright laws, NOT to unduly tick them off.
I can't say that I see much value in the idea. The majority of violators are just some random person putting photos on their blog or flickr or wherever without knowing better. Does Bob in Oregon or Jane in Minnesota really care if they're on a photographer's black list?
If it's a pretty big company or magazine and not just some SAHM that's habitually violating copyright, then sure, expose them - but I don't think that happens often enough to warrant a webpage.
If there's one thing that the music industry has taught us is that it is a losing battle to try to completely shut down copyright violators. Shutting down Napster was a lengthy and expensive process, and one week later people just found another service where they could get free music. Instead, adapting to the changing technology (a la iTunes) has helped find a middle-ground to what the studios want ($$$) and what the consumers want (free music).
Once while surfing the web I encountered a site of Christian sermon resources which had a gallery of "inspirational" nature photos which the site operator "had collected" and was offering to his sermon outline customers. He clearly had not troubled himself to ask for permission to put the images on his site and hadn't even recorded where he got them. To cover himself he had posted notice that if any of the photos was copyrighted and the copyright owner objected to his posting them on his site he would remove them.
After checking and determining that none of mine were among them I wrote him and informed him that under US & international agreement all photos are copyrighted from the moment of creation so his posting of them without permission or credit was a violation. Referring to the admonition "thou shaft not steal' I suggested that he should either obtain permission or remove them. He never replied directly but a month or so later the entire gallery section was removed from his site.
An unfortunate side effect of "image sharing" sites has been the Napster effect, the notion by some that anything posted to the web is free for the taking. In the process of surfing the web I regularly see sites containing photos that have been "collected" in the same manner as the site mentioned above based on the taste of the site owner and rarely do they indicate "used by permission". I can see the value in such list of abusers.
Discussion
6 repliesThis AM I was reviewing my webstats and noticed a trend that implied image theft. Within a few clicks I found the violation and promptly initiated action to have my illegally-used images to be removed.
I got thinking afterwards and wondered if there's an online list of websites that regularly steal images and/or violate copyright. I wouldn't be surprised if there is, but haven't encountered it yet myself. If anyone is aware of one, please let me (and all of us) know.
If there isn't such a resource, I could easily add such a list to my website and maintain it. I'm thinking it would be very handy for nature photographers to go the list and quickly check if their images are being stolen. My initial thoughts are that I would like to limit the list of violators to those absconding with images from nature photographers only, otherwise the I'm sure the list would likely become massive in no time.
Thoughts and feedback?
Cheers...
Brad
PS: I already have a mental list going of how violators would be reported and the list of conditions whereby violators could "clear their record" and be removed from the list. But suggestions will be gladly accepted.
PS2: This idea is protected by copyright and the patent is pending. Anyone who steals the idea and implements it before me (especially if they build a subscription-based model) will be frowned at.
What value do you expect to get from such a list?
Guy
What value? A convenient means of finding and checking websites that habitually violate copyright through the theft of images. To my mind it would be a valuable resource for nature photographers - i.e., a useful service that would be simple and easy to maintain.
Please explain your sentence:
I assume you're referring to websites that offer hosting and/or pseudo-hosting of blogs and/or personalized content of subscribers and/or members but just want confirmation (such as Facebook or blogger.com, etc).
RE: Violators having a case against me. Fear of reprisal from exposing habitual violators of copyright won't keep me up at night worrying.
Brad
How will listing those sites make finding the violations any more convenient than checking your own logs? I would think it will actually be harder to search dozens (hundreds?) of separate sites, often not even knowing what to search for.
Just curious how you see such a list used.
Guy
Many nature photographers either don't have access to their web logs and/or web stats or simply don't use them. It won't make it much more convenient for ME, but it will for many other nature photographers. Secondarily it would serve as subtle means of reprimand for violators - I'm assuming that most owners of websites wouldn't want to appear on the list or, alternately, would want to get off the list as soon as possible (through policing themselves and/or members more effectively).
Any listings would be annotated with carefully worded descriptions of the violations, i.e., written in a manner to encourage them to comply with copyright laws, NOT to unduly tick them off.
Brad
If it's a pretty big company or magazine and not just some SAHM that's habitually violating copyright, then sure, expose them - but I don't think that happens often enough to warrant a webpage.
If there's one thing that the music industry has taught us is that it is a losing battle to try to completely shut down copyright violators. Shutting down Napster was a lengthy and expensive process, and one week later people just found another service where they could get free music. Instead, adapting to the changing technology (a la iTunes) has helped find a middle-ground to what the studios want ($$$) and what the consumers want (free music).
After checking and determining that none of mine were among them I wrote him and informed him that under US & international agreement all photos are copyrighted from the moment of creation so his posting of them without permission or credit was a violation. Referring to the admonition "thou shaft not steal' I suggested that he should either obtain permission or remove them. He never replied directly but a month or so later the entire gallery section was removed from his site.
An unfortunate side effect of "image sharing" sites has been the Napster effect, the notion by some that anything posted to the web is free for the taking. In the process of surfing the web I regularly see sites containing photos that have been "collected" in the same manner as the site mentioned above based on the taste of the site owner and rarely do they indicate "used by permission". I can see the value in such list of abusers.
Jim Bullard