Advice Required

PCPhoto

ok ... scenario is ....

recently took a pic which has gone viral - its being used by blogs/websites all over the world.

Do I ? .....

A) Let it go ... this stuff happens !
Send invoices to every single person/website/newspaper.
C) Get in contact with a syndication agency who I will have to give my copyright to and let them chase everyone (this option means I have to take a percentage of any monies they do actually get)
D) Send out a solicitors letter to everyone demanding payment

if C ... does anyone have experience with syndication agencies ? I have been approached by one but would see the need to shop around instead of taking the first offer.

The pic in question - because people will be interested to know ...Zak Gilsenan (9yr old who signed for Barca)

thebaz

I'd let it go - but get in touch to get credited with photo where possible - a way of free advertising for yourself - the hassle of chasing every one up , when the price of an image has dropped so significantly , as I'm sure your aware ..

then again you are as expert , as anyone here, on these matters , so maybe ignore above

jpb1974

Looks like it's credited on Yahoo (hover over the image)

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/world-of-sport/nine-old-irish-messi-signs-barcelona-154350755.html

Good luck chasing the rest.

PCPhoto

jpb1974 wrote: »

Looks like it's credited on Yahoo (hover over the image)

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/world-of-sport/nine-old-irish-messi-signs-barcelona-154350755.html

Good luck chasing the rest.

as I said to a number of websites - giving me a credit wont pay the bills.

Eurosport purchased the image for their website !
(I have had a number of websites and newspapers throughout the world contact me asking for licence/permission...and for my fee !)

I'm tempted to give it to a worldwide agency (syndicate) who can control/monitor the images or at best will have a bigger force if payments are not made....but if so, who do I goto (I know of Getty and have been contacted by NIsyndicate) ... I have no experience in having an image syndicated - how often do you get paid - how do you know you can trust their facts/figures.

jpb1974

So what happened... Eurosport bought it and everyone else nicked the watermark-less version from there?

jpb1974

BTW: Did you have to arrange a model release?

PCPhoto

it was not a photoshoot and there is no commercial usage of the image being used that I know of so ...so model release required.

its editorial usage only.

image was on the Sun website originally as the job was for them - so they broke the news exclusive last monday and since then its been lifted from the Sun website and several websites that have requested usage/licence of the image - I found it on 3 australian newspaper websites and got a request via email from another Oz newspaper requesting usage. (the paper that requested were quoted €100 for usage while those that didn't request were sent an invoice for €250 and reported to the Oz copyright people)

I managed to find it on newspaper and blog websites in Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Spain, Italy, USA and Ireland (a radio station used it on their website).....still filtering through the results to try send out invoices and try find other places that it has been used.

one website in USA told me they'll take it down - AFTER I found it online and called them up - I told them they have used it and have to pay for using it .... and was just told send an invoice to the editor.

its crazy tough trying to keep on top of it all - spending all day working and every evening so far this week tracking down where the images are being used and creating/sending invoices.

I'd send out the invoices as you're doing (with a mark-up for the theft of the image) and see how many pay up. If you get most people paying up easily enough then you can chase the rest (make sure you keep a note of everywhere you find it so you're not sending out multiple invoices to the same people, etc. and ask the boardsies to keep an eye out for it and notify you of it's usage).

If most people don't pay up and you've a lot of chasing up to do, only then would I look towards getting involved with a syndication agency.


A credit doesn't pay the bills (as you said yourself) so invoice, invoice, invoice. 'Letting it go' doesn't benefit anybody.

AnCatDubh

If you were able to get it into Getty, they may be interested in chasing up

PCPhoto

AnCatDubh wrote: »

If you were able to get it into Getty, they may be interested in chasing up

Getting it syndicated with Getty wouldn't be an issue - have already been offered syndication from NIsyndication - trying to find out if anyone has actual experience with syndication agencies or am I better off chasing everyone myself.

Ballyman

Hi Paddy

I've had pics with a few syndication agencies and I no longer use them. They did work up to a point, im still receiving cheques from them and got one yesterday but they did miss quite a bit where I would find pics used that were never mentioned to me by the agency.

However they did always chase up payment when I pointed out pics to them and i always got paid. You are depending on a fair bit of trust when using these agencies but I think in the main they are honest as it would be easy enough find out if they were not paying for usage.

Anyway, long story short but i no longer use these agencies. Why, well the pics I was sending out were irish interest only in the main and it didn't make much sense me sending to an agency first and then them syndicating to irish and world media. The pics would only be used in the irish media so rather than get 50% cut from the agency I send the pics in myself and take 100%.

For something like what you have I think you are probably better off chasing what's out there yourself and syndicating future usage with Getty or corbis and let them worry about following up on future use. You know yourself, websites pay hardly anything anyway. I got a grand total of £12 for a pic used in 10 or more websites!!

ThOnda

Write a blog entry, so we can retweet that robbery. Links to a forum are not that successful/powerful.
And I would go for licensing the picture to agency, let them harvest what belongs to you. They don't take pictures, you do. Let them do the other work.

I've received a text message from PCPhoto to inform me that he has been banned from boards because he disputed the use of this image on the Soccer forum.

His posts can be read in this thread;

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=79760997#post79760997

Leftyflip

That's a poxy joke, what did he do wrong exactly?

tritium

Deleted User wrote: »

I've received a text message from PCPhoto to inform me that he has been banned from boards because he disputed the use of this image on the Soccer forum.

His posts can be read in this thread;

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=79760997#post79760997

Shameful

Absolutely shameful

Hopefully someone at a reasonably high level in the Boards mod community will see some sense on this

Shame on whomever decided this and shame on those who allowed it

dirtyghettokid

he is "perma" banned? i'm shocked. :eek:
that's not right.....

i didn't know you could be perma banned from boards for threatening legal action?!?!

11811

Deleted User wrote: »

I've received a text message from PCPhoto to inform me that he has been banned from boards because he disputed the use of this image on the Soccer forum.

His posts can be read in this thread;

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=79760997#post79760997

Christ, what a joke. Few months ago you bearly mention a newspaper article on the site without a huge copyright hoohah . Now when some actually defends their rights they get banned.

Gregor Samsa

Leftyflip wrote: »

That's a poxy joke, what did he do wrong exactly?

Here's the explanation in the prison forum:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056705293

ronanc15

Wow. Was not expecting that. Im sure that was just the straw that broke the camels back for paddy

Gregor Samsa

Some possible lessons from the two instances in the past 24 hours:

1. Don't try to crack a nut with a sledgehammer.
2. Choose your battles.
3. Most people don't regard non-profit copyright infringement as being wrong. That's a simple fact you have to deal with, no matter what laws or ethics are on your side.
4. Once it's on the internet, you've lost control of it. If you don't want to lose control of it, don't put it on the Internet. Trying to fight this is a battle doomed to failure from the start.
5. Threatening legal action is a last resort, not an opening salvo.

Hopefully cooler heads will prevail, and PCPhoto will be back with us soon.

ronanc15

Number 5 is essential there I think. In every law lecture I ever had, rule number one was litigation is an absolute last resort. Shouldn't even be mentioned until necessary or removal is refused

That being said I can see how it tipped Paddy over the edge.

tritium

phutyle wrote: »

Some possible lessons from the two instances in the past 24 hours:

3. Most people don't regard non-profit copyright infringement as being wrong. That's a simple fact you have to deal with, no matter what laws or ethics are on your side.

But heres the point- Boards do regard it as wrong!! Many of the forum charters make it very clear that attempts to share illegal download links/ illegal video streaming/ other copyright information is grounds for a ban. I'd suggest there are two reasons for this 1) Boards covering themselves against legal comeback and 2) Boards upholding the law. Clearly a number of posters on the soccer forum based on their responses don't seem to care about this, however (without trying to backseat mod) I would reasonably expect a forum mod to not encourage that sort of behaviour assuming Boards has an interest in either of the points I offered above. Paddys opening salvo may have been inelegant (assuming he hadn't tried the PM approach first), but there is a wider consistency issue here.

Gregor Samsa

tritium wrote: »

But heres the point- Boards do regard it as wrong!! [...] there is a wider consistency issue here.

Fair point.

pullandbang

I'm not going through all those threads but WTF!
PCPHOTO is one of the most active and most helpful members on this whole fooking website and he's been banned?

Get a grip folks and give the man a break.

Sir Gallagher

Perma-ban is very harsh, but PCphoto threatening legal action straight off the bat to someone in the soccer forum who's just posting a pic innocently enough is out of order. It's all well and good educating people on the matter but that's just wrong imo and it's not what boards.ie is all about.

delly

I remember several years ago when the rule of 'legal action = ban' came in. This was back when one big legal case could effectively end boards.ie for good, so the rule came about. The theory being that if you make threats against the site, you are effectively threatening the very community you are residing in, therefore the right to use said community is taken away.

The image wasn't even uploaded to boards.ie, it was just hotlinked from another source, and once reported the link was removed. I know you guys think its a bit OTT, especially as he is a respected poster, but if someone is quick to pull the legal card for an issue that could have been sorted in another easier way, then I see that person as threatening the very forums that you and I frequent for free on a regular basis.

All the above is personal opinion btw, nothing to do with being a mod. I have been here for 8 years and don't know what I'd do without the site, so if someone does something that may threaten it, then I have no sympathy I'm afraid.

tororosso

Some of the responses to what he wrote in that thread are plain disgraceful. There is no excuse here. As he basically informed them all of the legal aspect of copyright infringement he was written back to by posters to say that they in fact trivialised the issue and one poster rather insultingly demeaned the profession he is engaged in.

I would tend to find it tedious trying to educate people about the importance of copyright infringement and theft relating to photography but after reading some of those attitudes expressed in that soccer forum I would say PCPhoto has a point. I think PCPhoto is raising one of those taboos regarding the general behaviour of people while on the internet in general and that is copyright infringement manifested on online forums. As sad as it is now, and with attitudes towards photography as expressed on the soccer forum, I believe photographers who care about this issue have no choice but to put up an online image in a lower resolution with a watermark. In PCPhoto's case if the photo was lifted (i.e robbed) from a website he was contracted to do a job for it makes no difference as he is still the copyright holder.

I'm just wondering if a large organisation such as IRMA or the likes would use different language to the approach PCPhoto did in the forum? I doubt so. You don't see these types of companies asking people ; they simply instruct with the given alternative being legal action.

jpb1974

Perma-ban is very harsh, but PCphoto threatening legal action straight off the bat to someone in the soccer forum who's just posting a pic innocently enough is out of order. It's all well and good educating people on the matter but that's just wrong imo and it's not what boards.ie is all about.

Agreed.

Emotions aside, PCPhoto was often the most vigilant person around here when it came to upholding certain laws. Now the laws of boards.ie have caught up with him.

You live by the sword...

Gregor Samsa

tororosso wrote: »

I'm just wondering if a large organisation such as IRMA or the likes would use different language to the approach PCPhoto did in the forum? I doubt so.

Jaysus, when people are saying "that's what the IRMA would have done", you know it was an over-reaction.

randylonghorn

tororosso wrote: »

Some of the responses to what he wrote in that thread are plain disgraceful. There is no excuse here. As he basically informed them all of the legal aspect of copyright infringement he was written back to by posters to say that they in fact trivialised the issue and one poster rather insultingly demeaned the profession he is engaged in.

Someone linked to the pic because they were discussing how young the kids were; there was no intent to gain from another's work; there was no particular intent to breach copyright; there was simply thoughtlessness. This was not a case of a news site or similar which would obviously know better deliberately re-posting a photographer's copyright work; it was a couple of lads talking about soccer and (in their minds) basically picking up the newspaper and pointing to the picture and saying "look how young they are!". Yes, legally it's slightly different but the vast majority of ordinary people don't understand that.

A simple "That's a copyright photo, lads, could you remove it please?" I have no doubt would have seen it removed immediately, probably with an embarrassed apology, and without any of the smartass comments.

Wade in to any situation like that with immediate threats of legal action and you get everyone's back up. No one likes to be threatened for what they see as no good reason. Do you?

tororosso wrote: »

I would tend to find it tedious trying to educate people ....

You might, but imho it's the only way you're ever going to win the battle.

I have a friend who is heavily into his photography, so I can understand the photographer's point of view on this.

But the reality is that 95% + of ordinary people don't know the law, and more importantly don't understand why photographers get angry about this, or understand that it threatens a 'tog's livelihood.

And they never will if it's not explained calmly to them. IMHO the choice is simple: keep your patience and educate people and win the battle by degrees, or stand on the high ground and shout at people and throw legal threats around and close people's ears to what you're actually saying.

It's different ofc when you're dealing with a news agency or a big company and they've swiped your pic thinking that they'll probably get away with it. They know better; they know they're in breach of the law. For that matter, if someone from Boards staff had posted it in this instance, they *should* know better, and I presume they do. But it wasn't. It was a couple of lads chatting about soccer, much as if they were in the pub over a pint.

For the record, I have a lot of sympathy for PCPhoto in this instance; he was trying to deal with his pic basically having gone viral, and it must have been very annoying to see it pop up on Boards of all places; I'm sure his patience just flew out the window. Hopefully, a couple of days for everyone to calm down and this can be resolved in a friendly fashion.

Also for the record, I'm not a photographer, not even a good amateur (ye probably guessed! ). My background is in education and in community work. I wouldn't claim to be an expert, I'm not that full of myself, but I might claim to have learned a thing or two over the years about how you actually win the battle to change peoples' attitudes.


Btw, phutyle wins my personal "post of the thread" award!

phutyle wrote: »

Some possible lessons from the two instances in the past 24 hours:

1. Don't try to crack a nut with a sledgehammer.
2. Choose your battles.
3. Most people don't regard non-profit copyright infringement as being wrong. That's a simple fact you have to deal with, no matter what laws or ethics are on your side.
4. Once it's on the internet, you've lost control of it. If you don't want to lose control of it, don't put it on the Internet. Trying to fight this is a battle doomed to failure from the start.
5. Threatening legal action is a last resort, not an opening salvo.

Hopefully cooler heads will prevail, and PCPhoto will be back with us soon.

randylonghorn

Sir Gallagher wrote: »

Perma-ban is very harsh ...

Btw, as I understand it, while PCPhoto *has* been sitebanned, he has not been permasitebanned. (Is that a verb?! :pac:)

Necronomicon

Hopefully common sense will prevail and it will be acknowledged that while his approach was ill-conceived, it was in the heat of the moment and is not deserving of a permanent siteban; especially when you consider all that PCPhoto has done for the community.

Having never had an image spread like that (or having to make a living from it) I can only imagine how frustrating the last few days have been for him, but I have to agree with the sentiments of Sir Gallagher and randylonghorn that threatening Boards and the OP with legal action is his first reaction was a little out of order.

Some of the replies in the Soccer forum thread in ignorance to photographers' rights make me cringe. But the OP is an extremely good-natured poster who is held in the type of esteem in the SF as PCPhoto is in the Photography forum, which explains (if not excuses) the hostility of the posters towards PCPhoto in light of his brash approach.

nucker

PCPhoto wrote: »

ok ... scenario is ....

recently took a pic which has gone viral - its being used by blogs/websites all over the world.

Do I ? .....

A) Let it go ... this stuff happens !
Send invoices to every single person/website/newspaper.
C) Get in contact with a syndication agency who I will have to give my copyright to and let them chase everyone (this option means I have to take a percentage of any monies they do actually get)
D) Send out a solicitors letter to everyone demanding payment

if C ... does anyone have experience with syndication agencies ? I have been approached by one but would see the need to shop around instead of taking the first offer.

The pic in question - because people will be interested to know ...Zak Gilsenan (9yr old who signed for Barca)

This is why you should have a watermark. I use one right in the middle of my photos just so I can get people who are interested in using photos to contact me first

Gregor Samsa

Necronomicon wrote: »

Hopefully common sense will prevail

Indeed, I think common sense is really the key in all of this...

PCPhoto started this very thread looking for advice in how to handle the unauthorised use of his image. Looking at the replies, and the results of the poll, only one person thought that going straight to the legal route was a good idea. Most people thought that sending invoices, or getting an agency to do it on his behalf was the way to go. Common sense in action.

Now I assumed, and I'd wager that most other people did too, that he was talking about commercial websites. Not someone posting the image up on a discussion forum purely for illustrative purposes. Forget the law for a second and think in terms of common sense. There's a big, big difference between a news website using the image without paying, and some guy on a soccer forum hot-linking it to illustrate a point. Even if you subscribe the the notion that stealing an image for commercial use is the same as stealing a book from a shop, then what mars bar did is pretty much on the same level as bringing some friends into a bookshop and showing them the book. Sure the bookshop owner has the right to point to the "no reading" signs, but would common sense suggest that he jump straight in with a threat to call the cops?

If he had handed the image over to a syndication agency to enforce licensed use, do you think they would have gone after some user on Boards for the transgression in question? I don't know for sure, but my gut feeling is that they - the experts in this - would have followed the money, and not wasted their time with dealing with insignificant breaches of copyright. Common sense again.

It looks, from this thread, that PCPhoto has never had an image that's been so successful in usage terms. So this was maybe all a bit new to him. He could have been known as "the photographer that took the Zak Gilsenan pic". Used it to to make a name for himself, and got (rightly) paid from the commercial use of it. But now he's the photographer that straight off the bat threatened to sue some random individual and the biggest online community in the country for what most people would regard as fairly innocent use of the image. Hopefully it won't do him any commercial harm, but it'll hardly be a benefit.

We all know that PCPhoto has a fairly dogmatic attitude to copyright, but that kind of dogmatism can fly in the face of common sense sometimes. Being right is one thing, but doing the right thing is a different kettle of fish.

Hopefully common sense will prevail in terms of the site ban too, which is undoubtedly excessive. PCPhoto is a great photographer, and a very helpful poster, and while he's taken a less active role around here lately, he is a solid part of the community here. While I'm sure that this experience will have soured him to participating in Boards.ie, hopefully he'll be back soon, and we'll all be better and wiser for it.

Lastly, if you're reading this PCPhoto, dig up, man, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DIG UP!!! Looking for your pound of flesh in this case is not the way to go. Let common sense prevail!

Gregor Samsa

nucker wrote: »

This is why you should have a watermark. I use one right in the middle of my photos just so I can get people who are interested in using photos to contact me first

The image in question was legally used on the Sun's website, and was taken from there. News websites are hardly going to pay for an image that has a watermark splashed across the middle of it.

artyeva

wow.wasn't expectin' that.

still, hopefully ''corkbah'' will still be logged in on pc's laptop around to set us all on the straight and narrow about stealing other people's images/jobs while pc is on his holidays

nucker

phutyle wrote: »

The image in question was legally used on the Sun's website, and was taken from there. News websites are hardly going to pay for an image that has a watermark splashed across the middle of it.

Fair enough, if used legally, then the photographer should contact them, plus invoice them for usage.

I would also then go to a syndication agency, they can deal with these matter properly. The only thing is they are going to take a percentage of the fee(s)

I would also take a screenshot of where it is being used or ask them for a tear sheet so the OP can use it for future references

phutyle

I've been reading through the thread (and other threads relating to this, as copyright is obviously a big part of the world of photography) and it's interesting to hear some of the opinions.

phutyle wrote: »

He could have been known as "the photographer that took the Zak Gilsenan pic". Used it to to make a name for himself

Just on this point; as PC is a professional, he relies on photography to pay his bills and to live off. I can think of lots of iconic images throughout history, but even as someone who's a photographer myself, I couldn't tell you who took any of them.

Getting 'credited' for an image (as I've learned the hard way) is of absolutely no use. It doesn't help you get future work or get your name out there as much as most people would think (the only work it leads to, in my experience, is more work where the person wants you to work for free for a 'credit', which is grand if you're a hobbyist, of course, but an experienced professional like PCPhoto, who's known to all the papers already, doesn't need it).


I also think the attitude of the posters in the Soccer forum was way over the top and incredibly insulting.


I realise most will say PC's post threatening legal action may be over the top, and that's fair enough, but considering his image has become massively popular in a short time frame, I don't think having a discussion about the ins and outs of copyright was a priority to him. I'm pretty sure he just wanted the photo taken down (and others to know that he didn't want it posted) while he tried to track it's other online usage so he could find out where it was being used.


I'm pretty sure he knows this is a community thing, and not a news site. If he thought otherwise, I doubt he'd have asked for it to be removed, and instead would've just invoiced boards.ie (as he'll no doubt do with actual news sites).


I also think the whole "it's only linked to on boards, not actually hosted here, it's from Yahoo" excuse isn't plausible. If that was the way it worked you'd only ever sell a photograph once and then everyone else would just take it from there.


That said, all of that is just my own opinion of course. I haven't been talking to PCPhoto today at all, and I'm not sure if he's having any progress with the admins/mods but hopefully he'll be back with us soon. He's a tremendous poster and of great help to the photography forum.

magicbastarder

Deleted User wrote: »

Just on this point; as PC is a professional, he relies on photography to pay his bills and to live off. I can think of lots of iconic images throughout history, but even as someone who's a photographer myself, I couldn't tell you who took any of them.

Getting 'credited' for an image (as I've learned the hard way) is of absolutely no use. It doesn't help you get future work or get your name out there as much as most people would think (the only work it leads to, in my experience, is more work where the person wants you to work for free for a 'credit', which is grand if you're a hobbyist, of course, but an experienced professional like PCPhoto, who's known to all the papers already, doesn't need it).

to expand on this point - and i hope PCPhoto doesn't take this the wrong way - it's not a 'great' shot. i.e. it's the story behind it which is selling the image, not the quality of the shot. it's not a career making break for a photographer. so it's not something he'll be able to trade exposure for work.

tororosso

randylonghorn wrote: »

Someone linked to the pic because they were discussing how young the kids were; there was no intent to gain from another's work; there was no particular intent to breach copyright; there was simply thoughtlessness. This was not a case of a news site or similar which would obviously know better deliberately re-posting a photographer's copyright work; it was a couple of lads talking about soccer and (in their minds) basically picking up the newspaper and pointing to the picture and saying "look how young they are!". Yes, legally it's slightly different but the vast majority of ordinary people don't understand that.

A simple "That's a copyright photo, lads, could you remove it please?" I have no doubt would have seen it removed immediately, probably with an embarrassed apology, and without any of the smartass comments.

Wade in to any situation like that with immediate threats of legal action and you get everyone's back up. No one likes to be threatened for what they see as no good reason. Do you?

You might, but imho it's the only way you're ever going to win the battle.

I have a friend who is heavily into his photography, so I can understand the photographer's point of view on this.

But the reality is that 95% + of ordinary people don't know the law, and more importantly don't understand why photographers get angry about this, or understand that it threatens a 'tog's livelihood.

And they never will if it's not explained calmly to them. IMHO the choice is simple: keep your patience and educate people and win the battle by degrees, or stand on the high ground and shout at people and throw legal threats around and close people's ears to what you're actually saying.

It's different ofc when you're dealing with a news agency or a big company and they've swiped your pic thinking that they'll probably get away with it. They know better; they know they're in breach of the law. For that matter, if someone from Boards staff had posted it in this instance, they *should* know better, and I presume they do. But it wasn't. It was a couple of lads chatting about soccer, much as if they were in the pub over a pint.

For the record, I have a lot of sympathy for PCPhoto in this instance; he was trying to deal with his pic basically having gone viral, and it must have been very annoying to see it pop up on Boards of all places; I'm sure his patience just flew out the window. Hopefully, a couple of days for everyone to calm down and this can be resolved in a friendly fashion.

Also for the record, I'm not a photographer, not even a good amateur (ye probably guessed! ). My background is in education and in community work. I wouldn't claim to be an expert, I'm not that full of myself, but I might claim to have learned a thing or two over the years about how you actually win the battle to change peoples' attitudes.


Btw, phutyle wins my personal "post of the thread" award!

I'll acknowledge that PCPhoto's approach was mistaken and he could have asked them in a different way or simply PM'ed the culprit to have his photo taken down. I know it was only posted for social purposes and was not for any commercial gain but at the same time, by posting it on boards the photo was being further placed outside of the photographers control and the photographer holds the right to determine who gets to copy his photo. Photos posted online should really be watermarked but as this was for a news website then it removes the argument that the photographer should have protected the image online.

At the end of the day everybody knows what they own. If I didn't take a photo then I know sure as hell that I have no ownership over it. The reality is that most people will lift images off the internet and it's deemed ok so long as the photographer either a, doesn't care or b, doesnt find out about it. Just because the culture exists does not mean that laws arent being breached.

I largely agree though about what you are saying about changing people's attitudes. At the same time I would be tempted to ask some of those in the soccer forum where they get their soccer jerseys from?!

Paddy@CIRL

I feel really sorry for PCPhoto but it serves as a perfect example of why you should never go in all guns blazing. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar and all that.

jpb1974

it serves as a perfect example of why you should never go in all guns blazing

Usually at this point someone would hotlink to an image of Rambo and say "it worked for him".

But given the nature of this thread... :eek:

tororosso

jpb1974 wrote: »

Usually at this point someone would hotlink to an image of Rambo and say "it worked for him".

But given the nature of this thread... :eek:

so long as nobody informs the photographer it's all good!

hbr

Deleted User wrote: »

I've received a text message from PCPhoto to inform me that he has been banned from boards because he disputed the use of this image on the Soccer forum.

His posts can be read in this thread;

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=79760997#post79760997

Thats absolutely disgusting! Shame on boards.ie. I don't really want to be be
a part of this so I will delete my account today.

Thanks to all for the good company over the last few years.

magicbastarder

not deleting your account would not mean you condone the action nor that it would mean you were a part of it.

I don't think deleting accounts it the best form of protest (I don't even know if you can delete a Boards.ie account?)

randylonghorn

tororosso wrote: »

I'll acknowledge that PCPhoto's approach was mistaken and he could have asked them in a different way or simply PM'ed the culprit to have his photo taken down. I know it was only posted for social purposes and was not for any commercial gain but at the same time, by posting it on boards the photo was being further placed outside of the photographers control and the photographer holds the right to determine who gets to copy his photo.

Absolutely.

We're only discussing approach here ... and we seem to be much more on the same wavelength than we would have appeared to be last night.

As Paddy says, without my long-windedness ... :pac:

Paddy@CIRL wrote: »

I feel really sorry for PCPhoto but it serves as a perfect example of why you should never go in all guns blazing. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar and all that.

hbr wrote: »

Thats absolutely disgusting! Shame on boards.ie. I don't really want to be a part of this so I will delete my account today.

Thanks to all for the good company over the last few years.

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think deleting accounts it the best form of protest (I don't even know if you can delete a Boards.ie account?)

You can't, and everyone agrees to that in the T&C when they sign up. You can ofc close your account though, as s/he has done.

I honestly wonder did s/he actually read past the post s/he quoted?

I guess we'll never know.

ronanc15

hbr wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

I've received a text message from PCPhoto to inform me that he has been banned from boards because he disputed the use of this image on the Soccer forum.

His posts can be read in this thread;

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=79760997#post79760997

Thats absolutely disgusting! Shame on boards.ie. I don't really want to be be
a part of this so I will delete my account today.

Thanks to all for the good company over the last few years.

You appear to have missed the cracking a nut with a hammer reference.

nucker

I can understand the OP's pov really. Photographers like myself are trying their best to earn money and get a good reputation from doing this, it can be so annoying that someone had hotlinked a photo. To be honest I would never post anything of my best on the internet. Though the nature of the internet means people want more than just text to tell a story

The image is small, but that isn't the point. Photographers earn nothing with silly photo releases being pushed into their face by musicians who earn millions from merchandise and CD sales of them whining about their lost puppies etc...

PopeBuckfastXVI

Hotlinking on a discussion forum to a newspaper site that has paid the the photographer already is a world apart from rehosting the image, or even aggregating content for commercial purposes.

The photographer has been paid by the newspaper for their image, the only thing even close to being 'stolen' here is bandwidth from the newspaper site, it is up to them to protect their content/bandwidth and protect from hotlinking, it's not the original photographers job to police that for them.

Based on your tone in the soccer forum I can only suggest you hand over royalty collection to a 3rd party agency that will be less hot headed PCP.

Sir Gallagher

hbr wrote: »

Thats absolutely disgusting! Shame on boards.ie. I don't really want to be be
a part of this so I will delete my account today.

Thanks to all for the good company over the last few years.

Lol.