MY IMAGE STOLEN AND USED IN AN ONLINE NEWSPAPER! what do I do?

[kiwi]

did she tag it to Monty or something ?

Im just interested in how they came to find the image - and the OP didnt really mention any of that background data unless I missed it somehow

[Dylan & Marianne]

How did you find out that they were using your image Danielle? it's something something I get paranoid about from time to time but have no idea how it gets found out unless someone else happens to spot the image

[Danielle10]

did she tag it to Monty or something ?

Im just interested in how they came to find the image - and the OP didnt really mention any of that background data unless I missed it somehow

I am very curious as to how they found the image, I messaged monty last night and he said he knew nothing about it. I m thinking thats crap as he has quoted something in the story!!!

[Wayne]

The original image was placed on facebook and contains Danielle's signature. That has been cropped off the bottom of the image.

Danielle got a message on facebook requesting use of the image - see original post. Without reply, the image was taken, altered, used without credit to the photographer and without consent or payment.

One of the many reasons I won't use social media sites. If the above is true, then it just shows how easy it is to get information, images etc about the people who use them and don't lock them down in privacy settings. Sydney media did exactly the same thing (sourced images of a young girl from both hers, and her friends FB pages) to bolster their stories earlier this year. That is in addition to Mr Zuckerberg selling everything else about you from the back of house...

[Danielle10]

How did you find out that they were using your image Danielle? it's something something I get paranoid about from time to time but have no idea how it gets found out unless someone else happens to spot the image

Dylan, My dad told me about it and said that mike had emailed him the link. Ive just messaged mike about it but will be seeing him on friday hopefully to get more out of this. aaargh! Im a bit annoyed

[Danielle10]

One of the many reasons I won't use social media sites. If the above is true, then it just shows how easy it is to get information, images etc about the people who use them and don't lock them down in privacy settings. Sydney media did exactly the same thing (sourced images of a young girl from both hers, and her friends FB pages) to bolster their stories earlier this year. That is in addition to Mr Zuckerberg selling everything else about you from the back of house...

everything on my fb account is private - you cant see it unless you are a friend of mine. so im guessing the "leak" is mike and/or monty

[Xenedis]

Copyright infringement IS theft.

No, it isn't.

Theft is the unlawful removal of someone's property with intent to permanently deprive the lawful owner of that property.

It is taking the intellectual (and in this case also the artistic) property of someone else and using it without their permission.

That is copyright infringement, not theft.

In this instance it involves defacing the image to cover up the crime, like repainting a stolen car.

The crucial difference is that Danielle still has her image; it has not been removed from her possession.

Her rights as a copyright holder have been breached.

[Xenedis]

Xenedis, your situation where you asked them to withdraw the image, wouldn't it have been better just to send them an invoice with the letter and say "you have used my image without permission, here is my invoice" - seems all they had to do was remove it and they didnt pay you compensation ?

I achieved what I set out to achieve.

An image of mine, which was never intended for commercial usage and appeared on an organisation's Web site, was removed.

I didn't want compensation; I wanted my image removed, as:

1. I didn't authorise its usage; and
2. the image in question was not intended for commercial usage at all.

[peterb666]

That is copyright infringement, not theft.

I guess these guys have got it wrong... Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft

Image Theft Is a Crime

UPDATE COPYRIGHT THEFT: PETER BROWNE VS RATTLE N HUM CAIRNS

[Xenedis]

I guess these guys have got it wrong...

Unfortunately they have -- at least in their use of terms like 'theft' and 'stolen', which have a different legal meaning to copyright infringement.

Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft

Given that stealing (or theft) is the taking of one's property with the intent to permanently deprive the lawful owner of that property, I'm not sure how you can 'steal copyright' or be guilty of 'copyright theft' when copyright is a legal right, not a tangible asset; and when theft refers to removal of one's property, not the infringing upon someone's legal right to control copying and distribution of non-tangible content.

Your copyright can be infringed, but it cannot be removed from your possession.

Image Theft Is a Crime

In this article the author has used the terms 'stolen' and 'image theft', which unfortunately have been incorrectly used.

UPDATE COPYRIGHT THEFT: PETER BROWNE VS RATTLE N HUM CAIRNS

The above article is about a specific case of copyright violation. Just because the author uses the word 'stolen' does not make the act of copyright infringement an act of theft. They are completely different things.

You'll find that it is quite common for people to use terms like "image theft", "stole my work", "stole my copyright", etc., but the terminology is unfortunately erroneous.

That being said, here are some URLs for you to read:

Is Copyright Violation Stealing?
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_d...yright_vi.html

Intellectual Property Law: Is copyright infringement a kind of theft?
http://www.quora.com/Intellectual-Pr...-kind-of-theft

From the latter URL:

If one answers the question from a strictly legal point of view, copyright infringement is clearly not theft. It is a violation of one or more specific statutes, none of which define said violation as theft. In general, the legal definition of theft involves the unauthorized taking of another's property. Even though we use the phrase Intellectual Property rather casually, making a copy of a protected work does not involve taking that property - it involves violating the owners right to control copying of the property.

(Bold text is as per the source article; underlined text appears in italics in the source article.)

[Danielle10]

Regardless of whether it's stolen, theft whatever!
It's still not right and I haven't had a response so I'm really peeved!

[mongo]

Sorry guys – too much time is being spent on semantics. There is no doubt it is at least an infringement of copyright. It would be difficult to be a theft or stolen in strict legal terms.
However, for the purposes of this discussion, it does not really matter. In either case, it involves someone taking (or even borrowing) something without the owner’s permission (for personal gain) and the owner is entitled to be compensated and for the user to stop using it. As such it looks more a civil case (than a criminal case which might have attracted police attention). Also, in either case, we would all be just as appalled whatever you call it.

Mongo would be very interested to see what happens if Danielle would like to let us know in due course.

PS - Kiwi might know if there is a governing body for journalists re standards or ethics in Britain which could be written to as well

[Xenedis]

Regardless of whether it's stolen, theft whatever!
It's still not right and I haven't had a response so I'm really peeved!

Completely understandable.

The definition of what happened doesn't diminish the resulting bad feelings yourself and others have experienced.

It's absolutely not right, and as per an earlier post, I hope you can have the matter resolved to your satisfaction.

[Ezookiel]

I thought I read that putting a photo on Facebook gave THEM the rights over the image, and is in fact one of the big complaints about Facebook, so once it is there, then the newspaper theoretically only needed THEIR permission to use it and not yours.
But FB may have since changed their terms, but I doubt it.

[Mark L]

everything on my fb account is private - you cant see it unless you are a friend of mine. so im guessing the "leak" is mike and/or monty

In post #7 I said "They cropped out you're copyright watermark." I knew this 'case I found the image through the link in your signature.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/daniell...7627330612991/
fb account may be private, but I wouldn't accuse anyone of leaking (just yet).

[ricktas]

In post #7 I said "They cropped out you're copyright watermark." I knew this 'case I found the image through the link in your signature.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/daniell...7627330612991/
fb account may be private, but I wouldn't accuse anyone of leaking (just yet).

Hehehe. and guess who has access to Flickr...GETTY! Read the Flickr/Getty T&C:
http://www.flickr.com/help/gettyimages/

So if you have said yes to Getty on your Flickr account Danielle, that is probably how they got it

[Roosta]

Look at this I am mortified!!!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cri...k-England.html

what do I do??? Is there anything I can do??

I did have this message sent to me on fb the other day:

hi Danielle...I work for a newspaper in London and we would like to do a piece about Monty Panesar being picked for the England Test squad and we'd like to use your pic of him with the Mike Whitney Band....would that be OK....??
also you wouldn't have any of him singing would you..?/
any help much appreciated..Many thanks..Jack

Hope it all work sout for you.

[kiwi]

regardless of the Fb and Flickr/Getty links the OP still owns copyright and the paper is still in the wrong

[ricktas]

regardless of the Fb and Flickr/Getty links the OP still owns copyright and the paper is still in the wrong

Agree, but it is worthwhile pointing out the T&C of some of these sites, that allow them to use your photo (for any purpose), and that by uploading, or ticking a box, you are agreeing to it.

[agb]

Agree, but it is worthwhile pointing out the T&C of some of these sites, that allow them to use your photo (for any purpose), and that by uploading, or ticking a box, you are agreeing to it.

But that does not allow others to use the photo does it?