http://forums.railpictures.net/showthread.php?t=6708&page=1&pp=25
Activated the link.
Dan
wyomingrailfan wrote:Heres a thread on rail pictures.net about a Flikr member who steal photos and takes them for his own.I got the link from EJ818 in Teen Railfan Place in the trains.com forum.Somebody needs to complain to that sites managers, because this guy has stolen many photos, and all the replies basicly say, "you stole this photo"I'm going to try to get an account so I can complain(tried-but Safari keeps crashing)heres the link http://forums.railpictures.net/showthread.php?t=6708&page=1&pp=25 (must copy into address bar)
cry me a river gee you guys are a pain in the caboose, it seems to me that your crying over someone using or taking pics that you dont have permission to have. sorta like taking pictures of crews on trains with out the permission of them saying it alright and the crews opinion dont mean squat. as far as im concerned once its on the electronic billboard its far game. go cry some where else you dont have anything to gripe about
Gotta go with wabash on this one, once something is posted on the internet it's no longer private. Could have been worse, this guy could have stolen your identity instead of your pics.
As I see it, it's less about copyrights than it is about respect - this person appears to be passing off other folks photos as his own, even if only by implication in that he's posting them on a photo site where people post the stuff they're proud of.
Not significantly different from someone standing next to your prized hot rod at a car show and telling people that they built the car. You want credit for your effort and this person isn't providing that.
Methinks that courtesy would suggest that he post the picture with a disclaimer that "I found this picture by so-and-so that I really liked and wanted to share it."
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
TOUCHE Murph!
But seriously, methinks flickr is a site like photobucket where you can store pictures you like.
Mechanical Department "No no that's fine shove that 20 pound set all around the yard... those shoes aren't hell and a half to change..."
The Missabe Road: Safety First
While I sympathize with you:
1. Nobody "stole" your photos. They're still where you put them, on your computer's HD or a CD or DVD.
2. I looked at the site. He does not represent the works as his own, which while unethicical is not illegal. On the other hand, he did crop off any photo credits and copyright claims. If it isn't against site rules, then you should remove your photos and look elsewhere.
3. While this might marginally be a copyright issue, you'd have to prove some sort of monetary damages. Which is impossible, unless the person sells one of the "borrowed" photos as his own work to a magazine. Then you'd have a prima facie case.
4. This is the risk you assume when you post digital images to the Internet.
5. If the people that owned the phto sites really cared about such things, they'd install software that would prevent the images from being linked and/or downloaded.
6. There's no law against a person printing out a page from the web for their personal use. This would include printing out one of these images on high-quality photo paper.
7. What does the "thief" stand to gain by doing this, other than generate some attention for himself? He's a visual version of a troll. Or, as Jerry Seinfeld would call him, a "vroll".
"4. This is the risk you assume when you post digital images to the Internet"-PZ
That pretty much sums it up.
chad thomas wrote: "4. This is the risk you assume when you post digital images to the Internet"-PZThat pretty much sums it up.
On the website for my business, we keep the photos as small as the layout will allow and still be effective -- most under 300x200 at 72dpi. Loading photos to the "blowup" size they allow on some of these rail-shutterbug sites (and here, too) invites this sort of stuff.
True, posting anything online is at the posters risk, but any work that is put on the Internet is considered to be "published" and therefore qualifies for copyright protection. Just because it is on the Internet does not mean that is free for anyone to download, copy, and/or claim as their own.
I would say that if your photo was "stolen", I would file copyright charges.
Snoq. Pass RR wrote: True, posting anything online is at the posters risk, but any work that is put on the Internet is considered to be "published" and therefore qualifies for copyright protection. Just because it is on the Internet does not mean that is free for anyone to download, copy, and/or claim as their own.I would say that if your photo was "stolen", I would file copyright charges.
Let me correct you. Your photos are copyrighted as an original artistic work the second you take them. Look it up.
Where would you file "copyright charges"? You'd have to pay an attorney, find the offender and prove actual damages in civil court. Toughh to do at this level.
But as for "filing copyright charges", what if the person is in another country, as the guy being talked about seems to be?
I have to think the editors of the various rail publications live in fear of being duped into giving credit to the "thief" of a posted photo. There are steps that can be taken to mark photos that are posted.
While there is a "legal" or legalistic solution to this problem, where the copyright violations are not being used to make money, few copyright attorneys would be inclined to spend much time on the matter.
Ultimately this is a matter more for ethics, group pressure on "violators" and common standards of decency. I think we are still in the formative stages here of just what ethical standards exist when a photo is copied and shown elsewhere in terms of giving credit to the original source -- such as, who knows what the original source is?
And what if the copier puts some original work into the effort? If the discussion is over brakewheels for example and someone reviews freight car photos and isolates and expands a photo to focus on a unique or special brake wheel, legally that is still a copyright "violation" but ethically is there a point to be made that they are using it to make a point that was not necessarily even something the original photographer was aware of or intended to take a picture of? I raise the question. I have no solution.
We will not resolve this issue any time soon. It may be as hopeless as trying to educate more people about "photo-line etiquette" at railfan events ....
Dave Nelson
For those of you that don't think itis a big deal, think of this.
Lets say you have a fantastic little home layout that people haven't seen published. You put up all sorts of photos and descriptions of what you did on your own website, proud of what you did. The I come along see that, copy all the photos, write some nice text about 'my' layout and put it up on my website. I get lots of 'attaboys'. Then maybe I get approaced by MR and I piece together an article and get some nice cash to boot. Let's see how fast your tune will change then.
dknelson wrote:And what if the copier puts some original work into the effort? If the discussion is over brakewheels for example and someone reviews freight car photos and isolates and expands a photo to focus on a unique or special brake wheel, legally that is still a copyright "violation" but ethically is there a point to be made that they are using it to make a point that was not necessarily even something the original photographer was aware of or intended to take a picture of? I raise the question.
And what if the copier puts some original work into the effort? If the discussion is over brakewheels for example and someone reviews freight car photos and isolates and expands a photo to focus on a unique or special brake wheel, legally that is still a copyright "violation" but ethically is there a point to be made that they are using it to make a point that was not necessarily even something the original photographer was aware of or intended to take a picture of? I raise the question.
Wouldnt that be covered under the "fair use" policy, especially if a) the work is not for compensation, ie, a general forum or education use, and b) the work was attributed properly?
If someone was selling an article on brake wheels, then under the copyright laws (as a rank amature understands them) he would need permission to use all or part of that photo...
We have the same problem over at the photo site where I am an administrator. Generally we tell members to make sure their photos are uploaded at the lowest possible size, and resolution that our site will accept, and make the photo acceptable for viewing on the web. The other thing we tell members, that, while the photos are copyrighted while on our site, we encourage members to copyright their work.
If you want to make it "legal" then, print your photos, fill out the necessary forms from the Library of Congress, send it in with the 45 bucks, and then you can say that your work is copyrighted..... However, if you think that it going to help you sue someone who is doing the equivalent of "nyahh, nyahh, I took your picture and you can't catch me", good luck. The only way you can recoup any damage, is if they sell the photo, and make money off of it.... and then, the burden of proof is on you to prove it was yours from the beginning.
PZ is right, they are the equivalent of a "troll" and do it simply to aggravate others, because they know they can do it....
RicHamilton wrote: For those of you that don't think itis a big deal, think of this. Lets say you have a fantastic little home layout that people haven't seen published. You put up all sorts of photos and descriptions of what you did on your own website, proud of what you did. The I come along see that, copy all the photos, write some nice text about 'my' layout and put it up on my website. I get lots of 'attaboys'. Then maybe I get approaced by MR and I piece together an article and get some nice cash to boot. Let's see how fast your tune will change then.
If you're putting up high resolution pictures without any kind of watermark, you kind of deserve what you get. A magazine isn't going to publish a low resolution shot taken off the web someplace.
It really comes with the territory. You think railroad photography is bad? Check out this image of Michelle Wie that I took at the US Open a couple of years ago:
I can't even tell you how many times that shot, along with others from the US Open have been pirated off the web. When I find them, I usually contact the site and ask them to give me credit or remove it. I'm successful about 75% of the time, but there are sites where it's not going to happen.
In the end, I think it far more worthwhile to post my pictures on the web so I can share them with a much larger audience than if I didn't. If someone wants to copy it and pretend like it is his, that's his decision. I know that because of the resolution that I've posted them at, they won't be useful for much beyond web use, so I don't worry about it too much.
-ChrisWest Chicago, ILChristopher May Fine Art Photography"In wisdom gathered over time I have found that every experience is a form of exploration." ~Ansel Adams
Well, something seems to be going on over at the pirate site. I followed the link and went over to railpictures and then on to the flickr albumns in question and a number of the individual picture links are coming back with a blank and the comment "Oops - photo no longer available."
Poppa_Zit wrote:Your photos are copyrighted as an original artistic work the second you take them.
Yep. I almost took legal action against a former employer back in 2002 when I saw that they'd taken a couple of my photos from Marion, Ohio and were using them for the Richland County Ohio Visitors' Bureau's website and claiming that they were in Mansfield. I e-mailed the organization as well as my former employer and told them that they were my photos as I had the original negatives and that they were violating copyright laws. They were off the site in a couple hours.
Kevin
http://chatanuga.org/RailPage.html
http://chatanuga.org/WLMR.html
RicHamilton wrote:For those of you that don't think itis a big deal, think of this.Lets say you have a fantastic little home layout that people haven't seen published. You put up all sorts of photos and descriptions of what you did on your own website, proud of what you did. The I come along see that, copy all the photos, write some nice text about 'my' layout and put it up on my website. I get lots of 'attaboys'. Then maybe I get approaced by MR and I piece together an article and get some nice cash to boot. Let's see how fast your tune will change then.
I think once you have sold my pictures as your own to MR I have easy grounds to sue you - provided I can prove they're mine.
Enjoy
Paul
IRONROOSTER wrote:I think once you have sold my pictures as your own to MR I have easy grounds to sue you - provided I can prove they're mine.
That is right. But up until that point, some people here are saying no harm no foul. But imagine for a second, one of those photos was sold to a local newspaper or magazine that you would have very little chance of seeing. You don't know you can sue and I get money from your effort.
CopCarSS wrote:If you're putting up high resolution pictures without any kind of watermark, you kind of deserve what you get. A magazine isn't going to publish a low resolution shot taken off the web someplace.
But they all had the usual banner on them cropped off by the Flickr owner. Railpictures only started giving the option of a watermark but anyone with a little experience of Photoshop can get rid of those relativly easy
RicHamilton wrote: But they all had the usual banner on them cropped off by the Flickr owner. Railpictures only started giving the option of a watermark but anyone with a little experience of Photoshop can get rid of those relativly easy
A good watermark isn't easily removed in Photoshop. And I still don't understand what the huge deal is. Low res. shots will not be accepted by any reputable newspaper or magazine. Don't post full size images and you won't have to worry about it too much. If you're really losing sleep over it, I would recommend not posting anything at all. Risking piracy is the price of sharing your work with others on the net. Considering the exposure and resulting print sales and such that posting my pictures online has given me, that seems like a pretty small price to pay.
I am glad this discussion came up because I have an internet photography ethics question.Is it wrong to post a picture on Flickr e-mailed to you by someone else for the purpose of storing it?
George
overall wrote: I am glad this discussion came up because I have an internet photography ethics question.Is it wrong to post a picture on Flickr e-mailed to you by someone else for the purpose of storing it? George
I would say it's OK as long as proper credid is given to the photographer. I put others pix on my rrpicturearchives from time to time, usually nameing the album "from John Doe" or something like that.
Ethically, it would be wrong to post the image with the hope or intent of being taken for the owner of the image; that is, the person who took the image. If it were placed, for example, on your photo account or gallery, and the other images archived there were consistently described as your own, the image from the other person should be marked as an exception...otherwise it is a deception, and deception is unethical and immoral in this context. Deception isn't immoral in other contexts, such as in a game, but it is immoral in this context where recognition could give you an unwarranted advantage over the person who actually owns the image, or over others who also archive to that site.
-Crandell
CopCarSS wrote: RicHamilton wrote: For those of you that don't think itis a big deal, think of this. Lets say you have a fantastic little home layout that people haven't seen published. You put up all sorts of photos and descriptions of what you did on your own website, proud of what you did. The I come along see that, copy all the photos, write some nice text about 'my' layout and put it up on my website. I get lots of 'attaboys'. Then maybe I get approaced by MR and I piece together an article and get some nice cash to boot. Let's see how fast your tune will change then.If you're putting up high resolution pictures without any kind of watermark, you kind of deserve what you get. A magazine isn't going to publish a low resolution shot taken off the web someplace.It really comes with the territory. You think railroad photography is bad? Check out this image of Michelle Wie that I took at the US Open a couple of years ago:I can't even tell you how many times that shot, along with others from the US Open have been pirated off the web. When I find them, I usually contact the site and ask them to give me credit or remove it. I'm successful about 75% of the time, but there are sites where it's not going to happen.In the end, I think it far more worthwhile to post my pictures on the web so I can share them with a much larger audience than if I didn't. If someone wants to copy it and pretend like it is his, that's his decision. I know that because of the resolution that I've posted them at, they won't be useful for much beyond web use, so I don't worry about it too much.
Hey. I'll give you credit, nice pic. Not into golf but she's cute.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.