Copyright Query - Newspaper use of image - no permission

Sky King

Hi guys. I am sorry if this has been asked already - I did have a search in the forum and I found similar issues to mine but moreso to do with websites - blogs and facebook etc.

Basically a friend of mine was involved in an unfortunate accident and a popular irish paper today printed a picture of him which I took, without my permission.

The pic is most definitely mine and it was on the web and clearly marked as (c) my name.

I felt this was presumptuous and in bad taste. Can anyone shed any light on what rights I have?

I know boards have a strict policy on giving legal advise, so please don't give me any, just give general thoughts on what a person in my situation should do.

Many thanks, SK

*Edit several of my pics seem to be in several papers

PopeBuckfastXVI

Any link to the image in question, for curiosity sake?

Apart from that the most quoted advice in this situation is to send an invoice to the paper with the amount of money you want for use of the image.

magicbastarder

you should invoice every newspaper which used your photo without permission. i would invoice them for at least twice their going rate, given it was used without permission.

Sky King

Thanks for the input guys. How do I ascertain the going rate?

Buckfast I'll PM you the image.

PopeBuckfastXVI

You could go to gettyimages.com and go through the process of purchasing one of their news images and filling out the details to get a quote

Here's a random one I just did...



120774339 License Details
Use Editorial - Newspaper
Placement Inside
Circulation Up to 500,000
Distribution Print and web
Start date Aug 10, 2011
End date Aug 11, 2011
Territory Ireland
Industry Publishing - Periodicals
Exclusivity No Exclusivity
Contact us for exclusivity
Image: Collection: Title:
120774339 Bloomberg Bank Of England Inflation Report News Conference

Price: $ 155.00 USD

CabanSail

Where did you have it online?

Before going any further check the Terms & Conditions of that site. You may have given licence to a site or third party by posting your images there.

Sky King

Where did you have it online?

Picasa

CabanSail

You seem to be ok with Picasa.

Google claims no ownership or control over any Content submitted, posted or displayed by you on or through Picasa Web Albums. You or a third party licensor, as appropriate, retain all patent, trademark and copyright to any Content you submit, post or display on or through Picasa Web Albums and you are responsible for protecting those rights, as appropriate. By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through Picasa Web Albums, you grant Google a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce, adapt, distribute and publish such Content through Picasa Web Albums, including RSS or other content feeds offered through Picasa Web Albums,  and other Google services.  In addition, by submitting, posting or displaying Content which is intended to be available to the general public, you grant Google a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce, adapt, distribute and publish such Content for the purpose of displaying, distributing and promoting Google services. Google will discontinue this licensed use within a commercially reasonable period after such Content is removed from Picasa Web Albums. Google reserves the right to refuse to accept, post, display or transmit any Content in its sole discretion.

What is your attitude to your images being stolen?

Are you outraged and would have preferred that the images had not been published?

Are you happy to see your photo's in print and would have said yes if asked, so more upset by the mechanism of how it was done?

Personally I feel it's outrageous that these media companies feel they can help themselves to whatever they like. On the rare occasions they are caught they then want to just pay the rate they have set for a contributor. Even if they had to pay ten times the going rate they would still come out ahead of what their costs would be doing it all legitimately.

If it were me I'd send each paper which stole the image an invoice for €2000 payable within 14 days. If unpaid the fee will increase by 10% each 7 days overdue.

CabanSail

Forgot to ask, can you prove that you own the images? Do you have RAW files or the high resolution originals? Does your camera record it's serial number in the EXIF data?

Sky King

Thanks for the input CabanSail.

Yes I have all the high quality originals backed up together with date stamp. Not a photographer by any means but I like being organised with my pics.

I wouldn't go as far as outraged, but I am a bit annoyed that several national papers feel it's OK to steal images from people whose friends and family fall victim to unfortunate circumstances.

In other circumstances, (i.e. a more 'positive' news story), I probably wouldn't have cared at all, but in this situation there's no way I would have granted permission for anyone to print the pictures in a paper.

I can't see them paying €2,000 a pic though!

CabanSail

Sky King wrote: »

I can't see them paying €2,000 a pic though!

Well then charge them the price they negotiated with you prior to them using the images.

Maybe make the charge the maximum the small claims court can administer and if they don't pay lodge a claim there.

It depends on what value you put on the images and your sense of entitlement to determine the your own affairs and control your assets. If more people started to hit them for a couple of grand each time they stole an image they may think about their practices.

PaulW who posts here knows a good lawyer in this area. He may be along soon to put you in contact.

gbee

Send them an invoice for the use of the picture, there isn't too much money anymore, €70 ~ €150 is the going rate.

CabanSail

gbee wrote: »

€70 ~ €150 is the going rate.

That would be the rate agreed for images submitted and used legally. Surely the author has the right to set the rate of images that they can accept or reject. However if they have already taken them then surely they have accepted the value that the author places on them?

gbee

CabanSail wrote: »

That would be the rate agreed for images submitted and used legally. Surely the author has the right to set the rate of images that they can accept or reject. However if they have already taken them then surely they have accepted the value that the author places on them?

TBH, they were probably using a free picture.

Papers buy from agencies and known sources and scrub around for free stuff off the net or free stock.

The picture is already published on Picasa. I don't believe there is a value on these downloads. If it were on Getty Image and it had a €2,000 fee the paper would be charged for it just by downloading it even if they did not use it.

The value is the criteria, sure, the paper, I don't know which one, might pay €2,000 and ask for more, who knows? The problem occurs if they refuse to pay the €2K ~ at this point they don't have an invoice.

CabanSail

According to the above it was on Picasa. It was NOT a free download, it was stolen. Just because it's on Picasa doesn't mean it can be taken.

My point is that stolen images should be charged for at a very much higher rate than those obtained legally. That figure should be decided solely by the owner of the image, not by those that stole it.

CabanSail

According to the above it was on Picasa. It was NOT a free download, it was stolen. Just because it's on Picasa doesn't mean it can be taken.

My point is that stolen images should be charged for at a very much higher rate than those obtained legally. That figure should be decided solely by the owner of the image, not by those that stole it.

gbee

I guess we can suspend this until the OP issues an invoice and gets a reply form the paper.

BTW, his edit says now in several papers.

PCPhoto

OP - I'm a press photographer, this kind of thing is happening more and more often.

let me know who you want to send invoices to and I'll provide the details of who to contact and tell you the usual fee, can send you a sample invoice if you want too.

Cheers
Paddy C
(PCPhoto)

shemwhistler

I agree with CabanSail on a theoretical level, they've ignored the rules and have therefore forfeited the right to the normal process and rates, I think they should be penalised.

On a pragmatic level, what can be/do you want to achieve?

If you're just looking for some compensation and a (hopefully) easy time of it, then charge the going rate.

If you're outraged and will stop at nothing then go for the 2K figure.

Realistically a large figure is going to push you down the legal action road, do you have the energy, time, resources for such a thing?

Either way it's unlikely you'll get an apology or that they'll change their ways, which to be honest would probably be the preferred outcome.

Just my 2c worth
Matt

Sky King

Firstly, thanks a lot for the input and opinion everyone, especially Paddy C whose kind offer I shall be accepting via PM.

Yes they were on Picasa, but each image had a (c) and my name from the moment they were uploaded in 2008, and Picasa doesn't claim ownership of the images according to their terms as posted by Cabansail.

I don't want to go into too much more detail until this is resolved but I really appreciate people's thoughts on this. I will give you all the full low-down once I get everything wrapped up.

Cheers,

SK

shemwhistler

Hmm, clandestine.

Sky King or Spy king

Good luck with whatever you decide to do matey.

Robinwood

Sky King wrote: »

Picasa

Do you think it is safe to upload our pictures in Picasa ?

PCPhoto

its not safe to upload images anywhere online (AT THE MOMENT - CURRENTLY WORKING ON SORTING THAT OUT) - even watermarked images can and will be stolen and put on places like facebook and other social media.

CabanSail

I just found out that one of my images was being used on a website without my knowledge. It was a photo which won a local photography competition and they put it and the other contenders up on Facebook. From looking at the site it was taken from there and made the cover image for the site within a couple of days. Picked it up with a google image search.
It just happens that I have some sympathy for their cause and was going to contact them at some stage to see if this image would be useful for them. Sent off an email which politely outlined the problem. They were under the impression that because their premises were in the shot as well as a person associated with it that they had the right to use it. They did offer to take it down. I told them of my understanding of the way copyright works but provided them with a better copy of the image as Facebook seems to have reduced the quality a lot. Anyway it looks like I now may get a release from the person in the shot and maybe looking at it being made into a postcard and/or poster which means a small amount of royalties. The best part is that it may open a few doors down the track.

I'm just saying this as there are different situations and they should be treated accordingly. A national media company is a lot different to a few people trying to scratch a living.

Sky King

I am not much of a photographer, but I am a musician and I can fully empathise with people in this situation.

In my own situation (outline previously in this thread), I was extremely annoyed that:

1) My aviation pictures were used nationally in such a negative context. As an avid fan and promotor of recreational general aviation, I would never EVER have allowed that. For a positive news story on the subject, I probably would have have granted them use free of charge.

2) They were taken entirely without consent

3) There is the distinct possibility that some people I know who saw the images in the papers may think that I actually peddled my pics to a few rags in order to make a quick few bob on the back of what was an extremely unfortunate incident. This is what makes me angriest of all.

I whacked in a few saucy invoices and I am waiting to hear back. And I got on to a solicitor buddy of mine.

CabanSail

Good luck with it. Keep us updated with any developments.

Coriolanus

Interested to see how it turns out for you. Good luck.

ValueInIreland

I don't condone theft.... but... Would you leave your Bicycle / TV / Camera outside the front door and expect to find it there in the morning?
No? That's why I cannot understand people putting images (sometimes at high resolution) on un-secured websites without strong watermarks and being surprised when someone has "stolen" one.
How many of us have downloaded Music / Films / Software from the web when we know it's copyrighted and should be paid for?

'That said, I would expect the paper(s) in question to pay at their standard rates.

CabanSail

ValueInIreland wrote: »

I don't condone theft.... but... Would you leave your Bicycle / TV / Camera outside the front door and expect to find it there in the morning?
No? That's why I cannot understand people putting images (sometimes at high resolution) on un-secured websites without strong watermarks and being surprised when someone has "stolen" one.
How many of us have downloaded Music / Films / Software from the web when we know it's copyrighted and should be paid for?

'That said, I would expect the paper(s) in question to pay at their standard rates.

Hold on a second ..... A national newspaper is hardly in the same category as individual who downloads something on the sly or is naive. They are a large media institution and are fully conversant with the law. They just choose to ignore it because they get away with it. I have outlined above an example of the same thing being done to myself and it being handled in a different manner.

If you had someone come into your shop and walk out without paying for an item and it was detected how would you handle that? I assume if you were convinced it was a mistake then you would charge them for the item and that would be the end of it. If, however, the Gardai came to you saying they had caught an organised group of thieves who had been targeting shops and systematically shoplifting items, would you then settle for them paying for what they stole? Once again I am assuming that you would want the book thrown at them.

So no .... I do not agree that the newspapers should be simply charged at the going rate when they are detected as having stolen an image. The fee should reflect the inappropriateness of their actions.

-Chris-

ValueInIreland wrote: »

I don't condone theft.... but... Would you leave your Bicycle / TV / Camera outside the front door and expect to find it there in the morning?
No? That's why I cannot understand people putting images (sometimes at high resolution) on un-secured websites without strong watermarks and being surprised when someone has "stolen" one.
How many of us have downloaded Music / Films / Software from the web when we know it's copyrighted and should be paid for?

'That said, I would expect the paper(s) in question to pay at their standard rates.

Except we're not talking about petty bike thieves, we're talking about a professional organisation who regularly buy images as part of their daily business and who are fully aware of the going rates for, and legal situation around, the use of images.

In your analogy the bike thief is a staff member of Halfords who steals it as part of their job for the purpose of selling it in Halfords, with company permission.

ValueInIreland

CabanSail wrote: »

.....
So no .... I do not agree that the newspapers should be simply charged at the going rate when they are detected as having stolen an image. The fee should reflect the inappropriateness of their actions.

From what I know of most (Irish) News papers, the priority is to get the best news pictures quickly and before deadline and accept that payment will be made in due course. I would be surprised if the intent was to "steal" or get away without paying.
Anwway, as I stated earlier, I don't agree with just "lifting" pictures, but I do see the reality of the situation.
As regards the "Fee reflecting the ....actions..", I think most papers fees (at least those quoted in the region of €70-150, are way in excess of what most people would ever expect to sell an image for and talk of €2,ooo is just pure ambulance chasing bull**** mentality. I for one would be very happy to get €70 if I had a picture taken from my Flickr account - I would even swallow my pride for not haven given prior approval (I would however like to be asked / told and informed how to claim payment).
One more piece of advice.. Include your name, e-mail address and contact telephone number in the File Info / IPTC details of every photograph you put online / e-mail anywhere, so if there is an issue with anybody using it without permission the "culprit" will have no excuse for not contacting you!

CabanSail

ValueInIreland wrote: »

From what I know of most (Irish) News papers, the priority is to get the best news pictures quickly and before deadline and accept that payment will be made in due course. I would be surprised if the intent was to "steal" or get away without paying.
Anwway, as I stated earlier, I don't agree with just "lifting" pictures, but I do see the reality of the situation.
As regards the "Fee reflecting the ....actions..", I think most papers fees (at least those quoted in the region of €70-150, are way in excess of what most people would ever expect to sell an image for and talk of €2,ooo is just pure ambulance chasing bull**** mentality. I for one would be very happy to get €70 if I had a picture taken from my Flickr account - I would even swallow my pride for not haven given prior approval (I would however like to be asked / told and informed how to claim payment).
One more piece of advice.. Include your name, e-mail address and contact telephone number in the File Info / IPTC details of every photograph you put online / e-mail anywhere, so if there is an issue with anybody using it without permission the "culprit" will have no excuse for not contacting you!

What if the owner of the image does not want it used in the manner that the media outlets want? Should someone not be able to share images online without forfeiting their rights to the images?

I do realise that the media feel pressure to get images. Is that a reason we should accept that they will just steal them? Why can't the media work on this in a legal manner as an industry? They could approach the image sharing sites and offer that if people allow images to be bought then they can set them that way in the knowledge that if one is used then payment would follow. This could even be an opt out system covered in the terms and conditions. That way images which have been marked private are not allowed.

I could see your point about it being sort of acceptable if after the paper had urgently lifted an image they then notified the owner that this had occurred and asking where they can send the fee they owed them. Still not legal but much better than what they have done.

If I had an urgent photo shoot at midnight on Saturday night. I needed extra equipment to do this and was under pressure. I then just happen to walk past a camera shop and see that the toilet window has been left ajar. Sure, they will be pleased I am using their gear, so go in and help myself to what I need and do the shoot. After it's over I forget about it and move on. A couple of weeks later the owner sees me with some of his missing gear. He approaches and is quite upset. My response is to grudgingly give him some money. He says it's worth more but I then tell him that this is the going rate for used gear. It's my policy to only pay that amount and only if it's discovered I have the gear. He tries to argue that it was new when I took it and is only used because of my stealing it. My reply is that this is all I'm offering and to ask more is being greedy.

I really think that stolen images should be a criminal matter like any other theft. In the real world I feel that the cost should be very high to discourage the theft.

kfish2oo2

CabanSail makes a very strong argument. This is theft by a professional organization that deals with image purchases on a daily basis. There's no gray area here - they've taken an image without permission, pure and simple. It doesn't matter if the site in question isn't "secure" as you put it, the fact is it was uploaded under an all rights reserved license, and you can be damn sure whoever lifted the image knew that at the time.

In this case, it was lifted from an amateur. I have a strong feeling, however, that if these images were taken by a known professional in the industry, this wouldn't have happened. In my view, this is a clear cut case of a large business trying to take advantage of an amateur because the chances are said amateur wouldn't be familiar with the law and therefore is less likely to make an issue out of it. This is reprehensible behavior by an organization that most certainly knows the legal status if their actions.

tororosso

ValueInIreland wrote: »

From what I know of most (Irish) News papers, the priority is to get the best news pictures quickly and before deadline and accept that payment will be made in due course. I would be surprised if the intent was to "steal" or get away without paying.

To be honest I would not be surprised if a newspaper had the intent to "steal" or get away without paying. I remember being contacted by a newspaper for a photo I had on flickr. The said newspaper was very easily contactable when they were looking for the photo. The photo used was small and would not have earned much money. However when I contacted the said newspaper regarding payment and invoicing I was being passed from Billy to Jack and back to Billy again. Well let's just say that Billy then became unavailable for a while and didn't know how to answer emails and Jack had the same problem!

As it would have been such a small amount of money I balanced the financial return against the hassle of dealing with this paper and decided to drop the matter. A colleague of Billy and Jack then contacted me a while later with a request for another photo. I ignored it.

Sky King

ValueInIreland, Imagine yourself as a member of... I dunno... a kayaking club. Kayaking is your passion and you promote it at every opportunity.

Now imagine a good friend and kayaking mentor of yours is almost killed in a kayaking accident.

Following this, three national newspapers go on to your kayaking club's website and take YOUR pictures to use with their highly sensationalised (in two instances) and totally inaccurate (in all three) reports on the accident.

These are pictures you took specifically for the club's website to promote the sport and foster enthusiasm and interest among potential newcomers.

Would you really have this reaction:

ValueInIreland wrote: »

I for one would be very happy to get €70 if I had a picture taken from my Flickr account - I would even swallow my pride for not haven given prior approval

I really doubt it.

ValueInIreland

Caban Sail and Sky King make some good arguments, and the Kayaking scenario is very apt for me as that is how I began taking photographs.
The unfortunate problem in all this is that 99.99% of pictures posted on line are for "private" reasons, but very occasionally one of these photographs becomes newsworthy (unfortunately for negative reasons mostly). Whatever the story is and the type of media (TV, Web, Papers) there is an expectation that the story will be illustrated with a picture of the subject, and sometimes this results in images being "lifted".
No, it doesn't make it right....

ValueInIreland

'Just stirring it a bit more.... CabanSail has what I would regard as a very striking and potentially very commercially viable image in the pix.ie signaure bar on each post. The image is the Ireland shaped egg in a frying pan. I could see this being used in all sorts of media from cookery blogs, to Food Industry Trade mags etc.
I went into pix.ie, opened it at the maximum resolution and right clicked> Save as... Presto, I have a very usable 1.2mb image, no watermark, and no copyright information, no contact details.
I am not a pix.ie user, so I don't know all it's features, but I had a good look around and could not find your contact details there. Yes the image is marked COPYRIGHT, but every photograph is the COPYRIGHT property of the Photographer (with a few exceptions).
You are making it easy to "Steal" by not:

• Watermarking the image
• Using a site that at least disables the Right Click & Save Picture As command
• Uploading a fairly large file.

You are making it hard for an honest user to:

• Contact you
• Get your permission
• Pay you

If you took a publisher to court for unauthorised use of such an image you would be morally and legally correct but would have an uphill battle and may not win.

Ps the egg was yummy, burp!

Coriolanus

Not really Value.

If you leave the keys in your car, your insurance may not pay out because you were negligent, but the law, which is the important part here, will still prosecute the guy that got in and drove it off.

ValueInIreland

Nevore wrote: »

Not really Value.

If you leave the keys in your car, your insurance may not pay out because you were negligent, but the law, which is the important part here, will still prosecute the guy that got in and drove it off.

I agree, but the point I am making is why make it easy for someone to take your images and make you own life more difficult?? Don't you lock your car?

PCPhoto

to be fair ValueinIreland - you are effectively saying "its your fault if the image is stolen" ....do you blame yourself if your car is stolen ?? (despite locking it and putting the alarm on ...a thief can still steal your car - in general you could always have done something else to "protect" your valuables)

While I do agree with you - if you watermark/copyright and give contact details on each image it makes it easier for someone to contact you to gain permission and/or make payment.... it also makes it more difficult for someone to "steal" your work.... the problem is .... you shouldn't have to use every possible tactic to stop your work from being robbed,

Personally I think it should be an automatic assumption that any image online is the copyright of the photographer and anyone seeking to use an image must make contact with the photographer prior to using - if no contact is possible or not even made, the image should not be used....and if it is used a structure should be in place that if an image is found to have been used illegally an increased payment scheme should be used (if anything to deter it from happening in the future)

like everything else ... you will always get someone who tries to cheat the system - if these people are caught they should be punished (same goes for VRT, Tax, insurance dodgers - punishments in this country are a joke)

In the case of the OP - I provided contact details of who to contact in the relevant papers and gave an indication of what I normally invoice for and told the OP that its more than likely if you invoice for much higher than that chances are the papers will deal with the matter quite slowly (generally ignore or drag it out over months so you feel its not worth the hassle for a couple of quid) .... the people who were claiming sue sue sue also need to take a realistic approach, yes it was a breach of copyright rules and illegal use of copyright materials and legally you have the higher moral ground, but for the hassle of getting legal representation and waiting 6-12months for the money vs dropping an invoice for X amount and waiting approx 6 weeks.

A common sense approach is needed, for newspapers the "right" to take an image and use it for editorial purposes should not be seen as guilt free and acceptable, ALL Photographers who display their images online need to ensure contact details are available on each image or the website itself.

ValueInIreland

PCPhoto wrote: »

to be fair ValueinIreland - you are effectively saying "its your fault if the image is stolen" ....do you blame yourself if your car is stolen ?? (despite locking it and putting the alarm on ...a thief can still steal your car - in general you could always have done something else to "protect" your valuables)

Not so, I am just saying you are making it easy (Like leaving the keys in the car).

PCPhoto

maybe its just the way I read it ....:o

but as I said in the second paragraph - photographers *should* make every effort to stop people from stealing their image (I'm currently working on something which might help in this regard) - however they should feel safe putting images up online - and people taking images should make contact with the photographer.

at the very least every photographer's contact details should be on every picture - then the responsibility falls on the person who "steals" the image.... and if an image is used/stolen the person who took it has no excuses.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Here's a very relevant article about the Daily Mail robbing someones pictures, despite being denied permission:

http://www.wonderlandblog.com/wonderland/2011/08/the-daily-mail-knowingly-and-commercially-used-my-photos-despite-my-denying-them-permission.html

In situations like that, and Sky King's above, I think punitive damages should be awarded, based on emotional distress, not just the 'going rate' for a picture.

PCPhoto

difference between that and the OP is that he/she was contacted and refused permission to the Daily Mail and they still used it....so thats even more clear cut abuse of copyright laws.

interesting argument though - one person said that editorial rights supercede copyright

They will, and this is just me guessing, argue that the story is in the public interest and therefore they can bypass copyright law. There are very very few cases of this being held up in court so don't feel they can hold this over you.

....can anyone say if this is true? , I doubt it !!

the_syco

ValueInIreland wrote: »

'Just stirring it a bit more....

It's your own fault for allowing me steal your car, as your house had an area of wall made of glass through which I saw your car keys...

=-=

OP: check out the robots.txt file of the newspaper to see if it has stopped search engines linking to the story with your picture in it? Example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/robots.txt

Adrian.Sadlier

ValueInIreland wrote: »

'Just stirring it a bit more.... CabanSail has what I would regard as a very striking and potentially very commercially viable image in the pix.ie signaure bar on each post. The image is the Ireland shaped egg in a frying pan. I could see this being used in all sorts of media from cookery blogs, to Food Industry Trade mags etc.
I went into pix.ie, opened it at the maximum resolution and right clicked> Save as... Presto, I have a very usable 1.2mb image, no watermark, and no copyright information, no contact details.
I am not a pix.ie user, so I don't know all it's features!

ValueinIreland, pix.ie does preserve full exif data including copyright details etc. It may be that CabanSail chose not to (or forget) to embed the info in the uploaded image.

IPWS

To: ValueinIreland

Paddy - I am surprised that you defend the stealing of images - it is wrong plain and simple.

Regards

Alan M

IPWS

Just came across this article and some of you may be interested.

It is becoming a large issue and not just for fast breaking news.

CabanSail

IPWS wrote: »

To: ValueinIreland

I am surprised that you defend the stealing of images - it is wrong plain and simple.

Regards

Alan M

I do not think he has defended the stealing of images. A more lenient approach than I have suggested, but has always said that it is wrong for images to be taken without permission.

IPWS wrote: »

Just came across this article and some of you may be interested.

It is becoming a large issue and not just for fast breaking news.

Very interesting article and it has many of the same sentiments that are expressed in this thread.

IPWS

CabanSail wrote: »

I do not think he has defended the stealing of images. A more lenient approach than I have suggested, but has always said that it is wrong for images to be taken without permission.

Can we agree to differ on that - or maybe I was "just stirring it up".:)

Always interested in full disclosure.

ValueInIreland

IPWS wrote: »

To: ValueinIreland

Paddy - I am surprised that you defend the stealing of images - it is wrong plain and simple.

Regards

Alan M

Hi Alan, Absolutly NOT defending the theft of images, but I am trying to drive home the point about not making it easy for some to take an image and use an excuse that they could not contact the owner etc.
That's like claiming a community Police man who sugests locking your house, having an alarm and making notes of Serial numbers is defending the theft of un-secured items.