One of the members of 1x did alert me to something comical yet shocking: http://www.flickr.com/photos/assmr/6807010311/in/photostream. I'm very thankfull that someone did take the effort to attend me (thanks to Muhammad Owais Khan). It is not the first time this happens. Do other people experience things like this? Is it avoidable? Do I have to deal with it and should I just laugh and see it as a compliment? Should I react on this particular case? Curious to your opinions. Gr. Wieteke

Always. I ask to have them removed but on some sites it's no easy task. 

Hoi Wieteke,

I like your comment on the photo on Flickr Frédéric. I doubt you'll get any response from the "photographer" though but you might make him feel more guilty and he deserves that!

Wieteke, I saw that the person in question is also a member here at 1X.

I could not help it, but I know he will not react.

The ripped off image has been posted in 8 other Flickr groups!

Perhaps good to bring it under the attention of the founders then as well... I would not be surprised if they would be very interested to know.

Seems like the image on Flickr was removed as I get a "Page not found" upon visiting the link in the OP: So, justice has been done.

Just been informed by a very kind Flickr member that one of my images being used by another Flickr member :-(( Might be worthwhile for others to check this persons' photo stream to check that none of their work is there.
I will be contacting Yahoo to make a complaint about the copyroght violation when i get back from work tonight.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/61728836@N02/5751626410/in/photostream/

Seems none of us are likely to get away without having to deal with this kind of abuse :-((

Vic.

It is part of the risk of putting images on internet. Although that international copyright is pretty clear and protects the rights of the author/photographer to a great extend, it is a reality that copyrights are not always honored and chasing all the illegal use would soon be a full-time job. It is also therefore that this site does not have larger sizes than the 850 x 950 px. Only the ones participating in print sales need to provide hi-res images but these are safely stored on a server that is not online to prevent any risk. 

Good to see that your reactions are the same as my first thoughts. I don't mind people trying to imitate a picture of mine, then I should not put my pictures on the internet or in a tutorial book. But using a file and pretenting it is yours is really bad, even worse adding some really bad photshop actions :-). I did report it at Yahoo yesterday, and indeed the page is not working anymore, so I'm satisfied. Hopefully Yahoo also gives a warning or something to mister copy. I think it is good that people are alert and inform eachother when they notice photo abuse. I'll also inform one of the founders about this forum issue, not that they can do anything about it or prevent it, but it is good to know, I think.

Not long ago I found one of my images at marinetraffic.com posted by someone else as his own shot. And some here would probably remember a while ago one of my images was posted at a Russian photo-site by someone else. He had even answered comments and explained how it was shot.. People here at 1x who knows helped me getting him banned from that site!

I did quite a long search through the images in this persons' photostream (there were over 300 pages of images) and i found quite a lot of images belonging to other 1x members. I stressed this point in my email to Yahoo's copyright/IP team and along with the missuse of my own image it has had the desired effect and that member is no longer active on Flickr:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/61728836@N02/5751626410/in/photostream/

Reeesult!! :-))

:-) :-) :-)!!!!!!! I'm happy!
Wieteke

Having sorted the problem with the Flickr member using my and other 1x members photos by having their account closed on Flickr i have now had to go through the process again with the same person using the same image on their Livejournal account and have managed fo have my image suspended from their gallery.
However, since this person seems to be posting the stolen images to a number of different artists on different sites it may be worthwhile checking this persons gallery for other 1x members work.
I have recognised quite a number of 1x images here including one from Axel Hilderbrndt called "The stare". There is another i recognise on this page of a Glrizzly bear shaking off water but can't place the phtographer. Of course, there are a number of entries in the gallery with Flickr links showing as not available.......he he he!!!
Anyway, here's the link to this persons gallery of stolen images:

http://e-apraksina.livejournal.com/

A few more complaints need to be made to the site and hopefuly they may close the account of this person.

Vic,

Thank you, Vic! She has stolen one of my images and even removed the copyright and posted it on livejournal.com I reported the copyright violation and also reported it at imgur.com where the image was hosted.

Vic, 

Hi Axel,
Another result!!  :-))

I recieved this email from livejournal in response to my follow-up email:

Dear Mr. Parsons,

Thank you for following up regarding this account. Upon investigation, we have permanently suspended this account.

Regards,
Zoe
LiveJournal Abuse Prevention Team

Well done Vic!

Well Done Vic :))

Well done!!!

Well well, just when you think it's all over, along comes another gallery with the same images belonging to the same person, this time on Googl+.
Mistylights88 on Flickr who first drew my attention to this image thief has been doing some sterling work on behalf of other photographers in tracking down this offenders galleries. This is her most recent mail to me on Flickr:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hello vic
Something I don't understand about this thief
now she/he had the picasa albums removed and the old profile from google
plus but this still remains though if you click on her/his profile it states
no profile found and there is no way to report abuse do you understand it

plus.google.com/photos/103660417124483578559/albums#photos/103660417124483578559/albums
many photo in those albums
Misty----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortuneately i don't understand how to go about making a complaint here either, any suggestions from you knowledgeable folk here on 1x would be much appreciated.



Here are a few images that i recognise from 1x and there are many others which look very famailiar:

https://plus.google.com/photos/103660417124483578559/albums/5697820845868531825/5697821249818176130 belonging to  Alberto Di Donato

https://plus.google.com/photos/103660417124483578559/albums/5694076390568453585/5694077223824640290
belonging to Shikhei Goh

https://plus.google.com/photos/103660417124483578559/albums/5690467714002267233/5690469309059916706
belonging to Stephan Earl

https://plus.google.com/photos/103660417124483578559/albums/5689334612171895041/5689334927625501810
belonging to Amon Eichelberg

https://plus.google.com/photos/103660417124483578559/albums/5689334612171895041/5689334737182008354
and
https://plus.google.com/photos/103660417124483578559/albums/5690467714002267233/5690468795144873250
belonging to Dennis Binda

https://plus.google.com/photos/103660417124483578559/albums/5690467714002267233/5690468712351634578
belonging to Csaba Tokolyi

Sure, g+ also has a reporting option. just go to "option" on the lower LHS, that has the "report this image" button. Then you get the choice for a few options, a.o. copyright.

I'm not a big internet social network guy, so I need to ask:  what do these people get out of doing this?  Anything besides tricking people they don't know into thinking they are good photographers?

May I suggest, "...tricking people they don't know into thinking that they have been published on 1X.com"?

Hmm...if "being a good photographer" and "having been published on 1X.com" can be considered independent categories, I wonder which is more difficult to achieve.

You were doing just fine there for a while and now I see you started wandering again...

Since you are so alert to my wandering, can you tell me where I am?

Vic, I just found another image of mine that she stole and posted on Google+ and just reported it.

No, but, really, do they get any material benefit from views or clicks, like with youtube?  Or is it just self aggrandizement?

Well done Vic, this mornig I've noticed that http://e-apraksina.livejournal.com/ and her gallery is closed.
Yesterday I wrote to google+ about my shot stolen.

Thanks for you interest and reporting.

Best Regards
Alberto

That was the one called "I can almost fly? I thought i recognised it :-))You are right Frédéric, it probably will never end but if us photographers keep an eye out for each others work then at least we can whittle them down a bit at a time. :-))
You're welcome Alberto and thanks for letting me know that the G+ account has now been closed as well, quite saticefying to have made yet another dent in this persons collection of stolen images :-))

Thank you all for making reports and bringing the account down!!I think it's possibly some kind of obsessive, compulsive disorder of the kind suffered by collectors. A bit like twitchers and train spotters? Not sure really and we'll probably never know for sure!!

Exactly, or using the Belgian moto: "Strength through Unity"!

Google+ reinstated the account with all stolen images, including mine and I just filed a second notice. Here is the link: https://plus.google.com/103660417124483578559/posts

Yep, i saw that, why on earth would google reinstate the account with so many copyright violations reported??

To be honest, I am puzzled as well. Perhaps the one infringing was able to convince Google otherwise. That would be the only logical explanation I could think off. 

I wrote a second e-mail to Google+ asking why they knowingly host content that violates the copyright. They sent an e-mail earlier, stating that they took down the account because of copyright violations. Legally speaking, Google is on thin ice now. My best guess is that it is a case of incompetence.

The multiple issues surrounding enforcing one's copyrights are very complex. I am surprised Google put the material back up, but at the same time, Google probably is not too afraid of legal consequences.  I am going to try to explain why, and some things we all might consider to protect our rights.  But, I must stress that this applies only to US law - I know nothing about international intellectual property rights laws and their enforcement.

In the US, copyright in a work of art exists from the moment it is created until 70 years after the artist's death. Copyright is passed on to heirs of the estate.  Sounds good, right? But, here is the kicker. To pursue legal action for copyright violation, the copyright must have been registered with the US Copyright Office. Legal action is pursued in Federal, not District, Courts. The burden of proof for a Plaintiff is much higher in Federal Court, and unless an artist can prove that the violation caused significant loss of income (Gursky might win :-))  ) or that the violator is a reckless, repeat offender who needs to be financially punished, an artist is probably better off staying out of Federal Court.

That does not keep me from registering some of my images - even some that were rejected here ;-) . It is really quite easy and not expensive, because an entire year's worth of images can be registered online for $35.00 total.
http://www.copyright.gov/eco/
A suggestion should you decide to do this - the first time, I tried uploading high resolution files. At the rate that took, it would be more than a year to upload the files I wished to include. You do not need to send RAW or even high resolution files. I send jpg files now at 72ppi, 300 px on the longest side. That is enough to prove that an image is mine. I have become pretty selective about the images I register. When I am processing a file, if I like it, I save a small file in a folder marked "Copyright_year." Then I have images ready to send. I kind of like getting a Copyright Certificate in the mail. Just a personal note to myself that I am trying to take care of business for myself and ultimately perhaps for my son..

The point of this post - I do not know why Google allowed the images to be restored. But I suspect Google is not terribly afraid of legal action at this point, knowing that in the US, at least, legal action would be virtually impossible unless the images were registered. On the other hand, if someone has registered images and complains to Google, Google might doubt that a civil suit would be filed in Federal Court, but they couldn't be certain and might take the complaint a little more seriously.

Once again, just my opinion. . .

Thanks a lot for Your explaination. AFAIK google is located in Ireland, as far as Europe is concerned. It is due to some tax advantages they produce there. And the copyright law of Ireland, belonging to EU is those of the land, where the copyright holder is placed. Here in Germany the copyright is dependant alone on who creates the work. Registration is neither needed not necessary to fight violation or abuse. The copyright is devised into several rights and permissions of usage etc. I once wrote a longer article about I used in a pleading and some lectures. It's in German unfortunately :-) Of course, seen strictly formally, every unasked usage is "forbidden" (not in every case penological, but by civil law, even if a link to copyright holder is provided. I personally do not see it that way. To me it is absolutely ok, if someone shows my image as long as my name and the source is linked. I know, that I thereby loose control about on what site my images are shown. And see the contemplation against that point of view. But for me it is unacceptable, if images are used without that hints. In cases like that I become active :-) Christoph

Hi, Christof. Yes, under nearly all circumstances I would be happy with my name and a link to the source.

The Professional Photographers of America (PPA) has been working to get the Copyright Office (and then, ultimately Congress [like that is going to happen in my lifetime]) to consider developing something like a "Small Claims Court" to settle some infringement claims here in the US.  I give the link, but you may have to be a signed-in member to read it, so I'll also give an excerpt:

http://www.ppa.com/articles/471/PPAs-Proposed-Alternative-to-Federal-Court-Being-Considered.php

""We have always believed an alternative dispute resolution forum was needed to fill the gap created by those barriers that keep photographers out of the federal courts," notes David Trust, PPA?s chief executive officer.

As a result, we are delighted to see that engaging in a study of possible alternatives to the existing federal court system was one of the first points of order for Maria Pallante, the newest Register of Copyrights. Here are some of the features of the alternative dispute resolution method that is being considered:

1.The copyright owner wouldn?t need an attorney and could represent his/herself.

2. It would be a faster and more affordable method of seeking damages as compared to federal court.

3. Much like a small claims court, damages would be capped at a certain threshold."

But again, for myself, a name credit and link would, under most circumstances, satisfy me.

Google+ 'redeleted' the account in question, hopefully for good this time.