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
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
Darren
Gear : Nikon Goodness
Website : http://www.peakactionimages.com
Please support Precious Hearts
Constructive Critique of my images always appreciated
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
Call me Dylan! www.everlookphotography.com | www.everlookphotography.wordpress.com | www.flickr.com/photos/dmtoh
Canon EOS R5, : 16-35mm F4 L, 70-200F4 canon L, 24-70mm 2.8IIcanon L, Sirui tripod + K20D ballhead + RRS ballhead. |Sony A7r2 + Laowa 12mm F2.8, Nisi 15mm F4
Various NiSi systems : Currently using switch filter and predominantly 6 stop ND, 10 stop ND, 3 stop medium GND
Post : Adobe lightroom classic CC : Photoshop CC. Various actions for processing and web export
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...
No, it isn't.
Theft is the unlawful removal of someone's property with intent to permanently deprive the lawful owner of that property.
That is copyright infringement, not theft.
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.
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:
- I didn't authorise its usage; and
- the image in question was not intended for commercial usage at all.
Last edited by Xenedis; 13-12-2011 at 3:49pm.
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
Cheers
PeterB666
Olympus Pen F with Metabones Speed Booster and Laowa 12mm f/2.8 or Voigtlander 10.5mm f/0.95 or Nikon D800 with the Laowa 12mm f/2.8. The need to keep in touch with the past is a Nikon Photomic FTn or Nikon F2A and a Nikkor 25-50mm f/4 AI
Unfortunately they have -- at least in their use of terms like 'theft' and 'stolen', which have a different legal meaning to copyright infringement.
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.
In this article the author has used the terms 'stolen' and 'image theft', which unfortunately have been incorrectly used.
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:
(Bold text is as per the source article; underlined text appears in italics in the source article.)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.
Last edited by Xenedis; 13-12-2011 at 7:27pm.
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!
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
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.
Canon EOS 60D ..... EFS 18-200mm f/3.5 - 5.6 IS - 430 EXII Speedlite - "eBay special" Remote Control Unit - Manfrotto 190XPROB w 804RC2 head.
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
"It is one thing to make a picture of what a person looks like, it is another thing to make a portrait of who they are" - Paul Caponigro
Constructive Critique of my photographs is always appreciated
Nikon, etc!
RICK
My Photography
regardless of the Fb and Flickr/Getty links the OP still owns copyright and the paper is still in the wrong