Picture thief, strikes again!!

The forum for the very best information on loaches of all types. Come learn from our membership's vast experience!

Moderator: LoachForumModerators

User avatar
Graeme Robson
Posts: 9096
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 4:34 am
Location: Peterborough, UK
Contact:

Picture thief, strikes again!!

Post by Graeme Robson » Mon Nov 27, 2006 6:26 am

Image

User avatar
Emma Turner
Posts: 8901
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 5:07 pm
Location: Peterborough, UK
Contact:

Post by Emma Turner » Mon Nov 27, 2006 7:05 am

Grrrr! :evil: Have you sent them an e-mail?
Image
East of the Sun, West of the Moon.
Image

User avatar
Joe Loach
Posts: 1396
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2005 9:47 am
Location: Moses Lake, Washington, USA

Post by Joe Loach » Mon Nov 27, 2006 8:33 am

Welcome to the club.

These are both my pics:

http://tropicalfishgallery.com/species- ... isoni.html

User avatar
Graeme Robson
Posts: 9096
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 4:34 am
Location: Peterborough, UK
Contact:

Post by Graeme Robson » Mon Nov 27, 2006 8:48 am

I've sent him a e-mail and he says he will remove the pictures today.

Joe, yup it's annoying! :evil:
We wouldn't mind if ask first. It's nice to be appreciated. >>http://www.northeastaquatics.co.uk/ (one of my Torp's)
Image

User avatar
Martin Thoene
Posts: 11186
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 5:38 am
Location: Toronto.....Actually, I've been on LOL since September 1998

Post by Martin Thoene » Mon Nov 27, 2006 9:00 am

I wrote to this company in September and was told the fish would be removed......well............

http://www.aquatics-warehouse.co.uk/acatalog/

I discovered a pic of Beaufortia kweichowensis on another site last week. As I told Aquatic Warehouse, I have no problem with anybody using my photos as long as they ask. With it being my artwork and used for commercial purposes, I'm totally against it and told them so.

The reply blamed its useage on a now defunct company who designed their site. I appreciate the compliment of them wanting to use it, but it's just plain bad manners. In this case, had I been asked by them if they could use it I would have refused due to its close association with this site and of course the new LOL site where it features everywhere.

Martin.
Image Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

Image

User avatar
Emma Turner
Posts: 8901
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 5:07 pm
Location: Peterborough, UK
Contact:

Post by Emma Turner » Mon Nov 27, 2006 9:45 am

Martin, I think a little 'bump' is probably in order. They've had long enough to remove our famous LOL Clown logo by now! :evil:

Emma
Image
East of the Sun, West of the Moon.
Image

wasserscheu
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 9:29 am
Location: Munich

Post by wasserscheu » Mon Nov 27, 2006 10:05 am

... i´ve no experience and no detailed knowhow, but in case of e-Bay, I´d inform e-bay. As e-bay is profiting as well from sales. E-Bay could be accused of participating theft, once e-bay has been made aware of the facts and proof of ownership ... therefore e-bay may help removing the pic´s. ...

... in the long run, such stealing will lead to Artists putting their ID right in the centre of the fish and that would be a loss to LOL

... The one who uses the logo is legaly to blame, if the displaying party "bought" the logo at any site-designer (who simply stole the artwork), the Displaying party has to sue the designer. The artist sues the "displayer"...

... any lawers around?

Wolfram

User avatar
Ken
Posts: 4732
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Mifflin, Tennessee
Contact:

Post by Ken » Mon Nov 27, 2006 12:58 pm

Mark found this one of mine a couple of years ago. As usual, I would have happily let them use it if they had asked but since they didn't, I told them to take it down. I never got a reply but at least they added my name.

http://www.israquarium.co.il/Fish/Botia ... morei.html
“Good bread is the most fundamentally satisfying of all foods; and good bread with fresh butter, the greatest of feasts.”

James Beard

mickthefish
Posts: 3281
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:20 pm
Location: manchester, england

Post by mickthefish » Mon Nov 27, 2006 1:13 pm

put your name as near to the fish as possible.
or take the buggers to court. haha

User avatar
shari2
Posts: 6224
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:17 pm
Location: USA

Post by shari2 » Mon Nov 27, 2006 1:27 pm

Wow Ken. That's a blast from the past for me. Oddly enough, i can still read the Hebrew, though I haven't done it much in years. Thanks. 8)
books. gotta love em!
http://www.Apaperbackexchange.com

newshound
Posts: 630
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 9:05 pm
Location: northern ontario

Post by newshound » Mon Nov 27, 2006 6:50 pm

I have not read the rest of the post but according to CDN copyright laws you can sue for up to $6400 with out having to explain the cost in court.
I am a professional photographer and have images "ripped" all the time.
Google images helps people do this. It pisses me off to no end.
Business should know better...but if they do it anyway make them pay!
drain your pool!

User avatar
Graeme Robson
Posts: 9096
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 4:34 am
Location: Peterborough, UK
Contact:

Post by Graeme Robson » Mon Nov 27, 2006 7:18 pm

Taking into account of what all suggested, i think it's time for my Watermark program.

Image
Image

Mark in Vancouver
Posts: 14252
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 12:41 pm
Location: British Columbia

Post by Mark in Vancouver » Mon Nov 27, 2006 7:31 pm

Actually, I prefer the occasional use of my photos to placing a watermark over them. I don't want someone claiming they took my pictures or selling my pictures, but in the digital age when any idiot with a cell phone can take pictures, the whole "art" angle is a bit pretentious, IMO.

We have every right to email them and demand either a photo credit or an immediate withdrawal off the net. Copyright is implied, and people who don't get that need to learn a lesson, for sure. But how much money would anyone expect to win in a lawsuit over a borrowed loach picture? That's absurd.

Anyway, typing your name over the thing you want to share with people seems like the wrong answer. Some of the photos for one species of loach on the new site has the photographer's name in letters larger than the fish! What's the point of that? Once an image is sent into cyberspace, I don't know how much claim you really have that it remains your "property" in the normal sense of the word.

A simple photo credit would be enough for me.
Your vantage point determines what you can see.

User avatar
adampetherick
Posts: 296
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 5:53 am
Location: Fleet, Hampshire, England
Contact:

Post by adampetherick » Mon Nov 27, 2006 8:20 pm

It's all about the DMCA, if you email the isp/host of the website your pictures are on they can force the user to remove them or risk having their site shut down

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA

User avatar
Ken
Posts: 4732
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Mifflin, Tennessee
Contact:

Post by Ken » Mon Nov 27, 2006 9:16 pm

I'm with Mark on this one. If your watermark wrecks the picture, why bother posting it? If you put you name somewhere on the pic that doesn't wreck it, it's easy to crop or edit it out so why bother?
“Good bread is the most fundamentally satisfying of all foods; and good bread with fresh butter, the greatest of feasts.”

James Beard

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 318 guests