Word of warning
- This topic has 16 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated Jun 24, 2010 at 1:21 pm by
.
-
Posts
-
I was notified this morning via a post on a photogrpahy site/forum that a certain spanish website had and was ripping thousands of images and trying to sell them as wallpapers. On this particular photosite I frequent atleast 4 people found dozens of their own being offered for sale. I found dozens of my own in just minutes.
The site has been taken down. Apparently word spread like wildfire among photo communities. Users/websites got in touch with google, flickr, smug mug, et al who in turn Im sure are responsible for the quick action and take down.
this was the offending site. http://www.fotosimagen.com/
A sample thread of how bad it was. Taken from a photo sharing forum
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=170335Word to wise. “copy right infringement” is fairly rife. there are things you can do including joinging things such as access copyright etc to protect yourself.
But you’ll never be “safe” and the best defense is never upload large files that can be used for much more than net viewing. I myself upload no larger than 1024 x 750ish, am considering stepping down to 800px on the widest.
John –
The images uploaded on the photoblog here and on Flickr have never been bigger than 875px, which I find creates just enough of an unpleasant enlargement effect when set as a wallpaper to deter most people.
Zach
They have been shutdown for now. What they were also doing was providing the data for people to upload the photographs to their personal myspace and facebook pages. The really bad thing is that they advertised them for free to anyone and even though I “clearly” have copyrights on my images, they were still on there and fully downloadable, even photographs that I had deleted over a year ago.
I dont mind 1024 x 750. Not useable for print but it does leave itself open to this kind of theft.
the problem I find with 750 is it doesnt give viewers who have a critical eye ( buyers) enough at a quick glance. Alot of ADs are frequenting my site now and often use a quick preview.
I myself find that photos can look good as 750s, but are starting not to hold up at 1024, and would not be something Id submit full res.
Either way I think your right Zach and the safer coarse would be 750 or 800px on the widest.The other problem is, at 800px and even 750px, the images would still be considered large for web commercial use.
Just found out that they have 2 web hosts, mirrored sights. One has been shut down and a group of us are sending emails to the other. Demanding that our copyrighted images be removed, via formal DMCA takedown requests. Both hosts are in the US so, by law they will have to remove the photographs or share, as equal infringing party, to any infringement law suits. After enough DMCA notifications have been delivered, they will most likely shut the site down too.
Ben can you email me the DMCA request and any pertinent info, I’ll send my own.
jrdben@rogers.comAnd if you dont mind I’ll copy that last post to the photo sharing site where I was notified.
Thnx
JI’ll do you one better John. This is from attorney Carolyn E. Wright, who has given permission to use her outline:
To email the current active hosting site: support@midphase.com
Infringement of several of my photographs have been found on the website http://www.fotosimagen.com. The following pages /entries are being displayed and distributed without permission.
Mark them here:
This letter is official notification under the provisions of Section 512(c) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) to effect removal of the reported infringements. I request that you immediately issue a cancellation message as specified in RFC 1036 for the specified posting and prevent the infringer, who is identified by its web address, from posting the infringing article to your servers in the future. Please be advised that law requires you, as a service provider, to “expeditiously remove or disable access to” the infringing photographs upon receiving this notice. Noncompliance may result in a loss of immunity for liability under the DMCA.
I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted material described above on the allegedly infringing web pages is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. The information provided here is accurate to the best of my knowledge. I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
Please send me at the address noted below a prompt response indicating the actions you have taken to resolve this matter.
Type in your itinerant angler “nickname” on that site and be ready . . .
Almost every picture I have ever posted to this board comes up with a notion for itinerantangler.com.
Somebody please help me understand this. I saw one of my images and images from numerous IA people, and then some other images from N. TX photogs that I know. I can only assume this is not kosher, but what can one do?
D.
Type in your itinerant angler “nickname” on that site and be ready . . .
Almost every picture I have ever posted to this board comes up with a notion for itinerantangler.com.
Ditto.
OK, so it has google adsense advertising on it too. Could we contact google and at least get them alerted?
One of their web hosts suspended the site and just got word from the other. The web site owners promised to add an opt out feature for those that want to remove their photographs from that site. The hosting company said that if they do not do so, they will suspend and probably terminate the hosting.
Keep your eyes peeled for the opt out and I don’t know if it will be in english or not, only the site owners know, at present.
I suggest we go around to their place and teach them the concept of respect and copyright.
I’m bringing some rap music, rope and a bat.. 😉
www.dsaphoto.com
A picture is thousand words that takes less than a second while a thousand words is a picture that takes a month.
LOL David.
They actually changed their format now. Now the photographs link back to where the originals are posted and they took down the links for peoples pleasure in posting to their social network sites. In essence, they are now direct inline linking which is ok under the international copyright laws. They are basically nothing more than a Google/Yahoo image clone now.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.