I'm using your photo!

Tallon

Not really, but I've been thinking about this today

It's safe to say everyone for the most part would be annoyed if you saw your photo being used in a paper or magazine or whatever (with no credit) but how do people feel about someone 'referencing' your photo?

Let me give an example, someone asks is glendalough a nice place on a random forum, I google it and get a photo that you took and day 'yes it is, look'

Would you be annoyed at someone using your photo in this manner?

JustAThought

Tallon wrote: »

Not really, but I've been thinking about this today

It's safe to say everyone for the most part would be annoyed if you saw your photo being used in a paper or magazine or whatever (with no credit) but how do people feel about someone 'referencing' your photo?

Let me give an example, someone asks is glendalough a nice place on a random forum, I google it and get a photo that you took and day 'yes it is, look'

Would you be annoyed at someone using your photo in this manner?

YES.

Ask, don't take.

Didn't your mother teach you any manners?

Splinters

I recently had an enquirey about a shoot and when I asked if they could send over a few sample images I received a pdf they had compiled containing one of my own shots from a previous shoot. They didn't realise I had shot that image. I don't know if thats the exact context in which you meant, but I was quite flattered to be honest that somebody used my image as reference point for something they wanted to achieve.

magicbastarder

Tallon wrote: »

Not really, but I've been thinking about this today

It's safe to say everyone for the most part would be annoyed if you saw your photo being used in a paper or magazine or whatever (with no credit) but how do people feel about someone 'referencing' your photo?

Let me give an example, someone asks is glendalough a nice place on a random forum, I google it and get a photo that you took and day 'yes it is, look'

Would you be annoyed at someone using your photo in this manner?

you mean directly linking the image into the post, rather than pointing you to the thread?

Tallon

magicbastarder wrote: »

you mean directly linking the image into the post, rather than pointing you to the thread?

Exactly!

magicbastarder

i have often linked photos (not from forums usually) into forum discussions. usually in the sense that you'd see them in 'you laugh, you lose', less often to illustrate a point. so i suppose it'd be hypocritical of me to see a photo i posted to the random photo thread being used in another forum.

Tallon

I'd be more leaning towards someone who does it 'unknowingly' without getting any gain from it

Like using it as an ad or logo or similar

Corkbah

Tallon wrote: »

I'd be more leaning towards someone who does it 'unknowingly' without getting any gain from it

Like using it as an ad or logo or similar

essentially ...like someone googling an image up and taking it ...but linking the image to the original host ...hotlinking I believe its called.

for me...its wrong !

if someone wants permission to use an image ...ask me, if you don't ask, you can expect to pay...and it'll cost a hell of a lot more because you didn't ask.

AnCatDubh

Try a google image search - they *used* to do a thumbnail image which linked the searcher to the (your) page where your image was hosted thereby giving the resultant click (and whatever value that has to you) to the publisher of the image.

But now when you click on the image they give a larger version than the thumbnail indicating that it is on whatever site, a click link to "view on page", and a click link to get you directly to "view original image" which is great as it just consumes your web resources that you are probably paying for (if serious about your online presence) without anyone actually visiting whatever it is that your website is trying to get across.

The latter part "view original image" is a bit of a bummer imho.

Then again my thinking is full of contradictions - For a forum, I think hot linking generally is fine so long as it isn't being profited from (attribution would be nice too except most of us don't have a fair use attribution statement published on our websites. Also, in this world of the web where you don't have control of stuff (legal yes, but technically unlikely), if someone wants to take the risk of hotlinking to an image on their site and the image owner decides to change the photo to a "copyright infringement" message or whatever (yes, people have put some horrendous sh** to replace an original image where they haven't agreed with the hotlinking), then its gonna be their own funeral they'll be attending.

I'd be totally against people 'lifting' an image and republishing as their own work or as part of a collection with no agreement from the creator of that image.

The google thing bothers me because it serves to make it easier for people to lift such images without at least them being aware that the image does actually belong to someone else. Your webpage might just be the thing which reminds a visitor that an image is (C)Copyright XYZ..... (yes, i know you have legal copyright anyway albeit effective after the horse has bolted).

I think in all of this there should be better technical solutions, even terribly basic ones such as a fairuse.txt (similar to robots.txt for search engines) which the major platforms could respect which would say whether the owner of the work permits fair use, hotlinking, etc.... at least at time of publication. In such a scenario, you try to hot link an image from Tallon's blog and vbulletin which boards.ie runs on would request 'permission' from Tallon's fairuse.txt to see if it is acceptable or not and allows the image to be linked if so directed to. If the same was being done on Corkbah's site then that site's fairuse.txt would say "RESTRICT ALL" and it wouldn't allow it. Yes, I know..... this doesn't technically stop anything. An unscrupulous user would still right click an image, download it, republish and then hot link if they wanted to, but it does put it in the end users face as to their awareness of whether they are 'allowed' do it or not. This, because in many instances people won't mind their work being republished. If you hit the major blogging and web site publishing platforms you would very quickly have some impact. All of this might work for the same reason that eBay works - that they reckon a very high percentage of people will do the right thing (fulfill the buying / selling agreement reached). Similarly I think if people were aware of the owners wishes and legal entitlements then I think a high portion of them genuinely will respect the owners intentions. There is an unreal level of ignorance about such matters among the general population who now have the ability to be web publishers without any formal guidance.

It is also a terribly complicated area. An image shared on facebook. You see it and hit share. Someone else sees it and hits Share. It perpetuates. Hmnnnnn....

Corkbah

AnCatDubh wrote: »

For a forum, I think hot linking generally is fine so long as it isn't being profited from (attribution would be nice too except most of us don't have a fair use attribution statement published on our websites. Also, in this world of the web where you don't have control of stuff (legal yes, but technically unlikely), if someone wants to take the risk of hotlinking to an image on their site and the image owner decides to change the photo to a "copyright infringement" message or whatever (yes, people have put some horrendous sh** to replace an original image where they haven't agreed with the hotlinking), then its gonna be their own funeral they'll be attending.

I'd be totally against people 'lifting' an image and republishing as their own work or as part of a collection with no agreement from the creator of that image.

Personally I think hotlinking is wrong - not only are they actually usuing your own bandwith usage but using your image to their benefit (people dont borrow/link/rob/steal an image unless they believe it is of benefit to them)

AnCatDubh wrote: »

I think in all of this there should be better technical solutions, even terribly basic ones such as a fairuse.txt (similar to robots.txt for search engines) which the major platforms could respect which would say whether the owner of the work permits fair use, hotlinking, etc.... at least at time of publication.

a simpler solution would be a usage credit - if a person wishes to use an image online they choose said image from a central database (probably google) and google allows them the permitted usage, doesn't matter if its a blog or a newspaper - the fee is pre-determined and non-negotiable - the photographer then gets their payment from google.....so no licence to use an image you dont get access to the images (basically you have to subscribe to view images and pay google money...and google being google would mean you have to subscribe to upload images and pay google money !! )


Google have the capacity to block images for different logins - the amount of people without google accounts these days ... I'd say is pretty low.