# My Image was STOLEN!!



## YoungPhotoGirl (Jun 1, 2015)

I have reported the copyright violation to Facebook and left a message,
But OMG what did she do to it!!!!!
(This was taken a few years ago too lol embarassing as it is- its still better than that atrocity!!!!)
Anything else I can do?
Can't believe the cheek of stealing someone else's work and claiming its yours, and writing down that its copyrighted to you!!!! MY GOD!





View attachment 102467


----------



## acparsons (Jun 1, 2015)

Waiting for her reply!


----------



## YoungPhotoGirl (Jun 1, 2015)

None yet, will keep you updated. Bloody pisses me off.
Its a friggen photo of HER so how can she claim she took it lol.
#angrylady


----------



## bribrius (Jun 1, 2015)

YoungPhotoGirl said:


> None yet, will keep you updated. Bloody pisses me off.
> Its a friggen photo of HER so how can she claim she took it lol.
> #angrylady


selfie.

can you prove you took it?


----------



## YoungPhotoGirl (Jun 1, 2015)

Yes I can have originals and edits on my pc  Of course


----------



## YoungPhotoGirl (Jun 1, 2015)

bribrius said:


> YoungPhotoGirl said:
> 
> 
> > None yet, will keep you updated. Bloody pisses me off.
> ...


Yes I can have originals and edits on my pc  Of course


----------



## Buckster (Jun 1, 2015)

You aware what's going on right now with Richard Prince using Instagram images shot by others?


----------



## YoungPhotoGirl (Jun 1, 2015)

Buckster said:


> You aware what's going on right now with Richard Prince using Instagram images shot by others?


Yep doesn't mean that she is allowed to do that if it wasn't previously agreed to. Non-Commercial is non-commercial, and its still my photo. She can do whatever the heck she wants with her OWN photos.....


----------



## YoungPhotoGirl (Jun 1, 2015)

and the whole Richard prince thing seriously bothers me..... lol


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 1, 2015)

YoungPhotoGirl said:


> Yes I can have originals and edits on my pc  Of course



I can't speak to the laws in NZ, but here in the States that would mean _zip_.  Have you applied for _and received _a copyright registration through the proper channels in your country?



YoungPhotoGirl said:


> This is her full image



So you're using HER image?


----------



## Buckster (Jun 1, 2015)

YoungPhotoGirl said:


> and the whole Richard prince thing seriously bothers me..... lol


Yeah, it bothers a lot of us, but that's the point.  If he can do what he's doing and what he did to bring on the previous copyright lawsuit, and lean so heavily on "fair use" to make his "art", then what's to stop anyone else from doing something similar, including the woman who used your photo?

 At least she's the model.  Prince doesn't even have that, and apparently doesn't need it.  Not that it's ANY IOTA of justification, because it's simply not.

Don't get me wrong - I totally get where you're coming from.  I register every photo I shoot that doesn't get deleted, and jealously pursue and get money for photos of mine that people use without permission.  So, I'm on your side in this.

Be that as it may, what will you do if she tells you to stuff it? 

Do you have a registered copyright?  Do you have a written agreement with the model?


----------



## YoungPhotoGirl (Jun 1, 2015)

480sparky said:


> YoungPhotoGirl said:
> 
> 
> > Yes I can have originals and edits on my pc  Of course
> ...


"Copyright comes into existence automatically under the Copyright Act 1994, when a work is put into material form e.g. manuscript, audio/video recording, photo. 

No registration is necessary (or even possible), nor is any other formality required for securing copyright protection." - That is NEWZEALAND copyright law lol.....Feel sorry for you guys!!!


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 1, 2015)

So instead of complaining to a bunch of strangers on an innernets forum, why aren't you contacting a lawyer who specializes in intellectual property cases?


----------



## YoungPhotoGirl (Jun 1, 2015)

YoungPhotoGirl said:


> This is her full image



So you're using HER image?[/QUOTE]
Yes I am. And I won't take this thread down until my photo is removed. I WOULD not create a photograph like she has with MY photo, so it is misrepresenting me as a business if someone becomes aware that its the same photo.


----------



## YoungPhotoGirl (Jun 1, 2015)

480sparky said:


> So instead of complaining to a bunch of strangers on an innernets forum, why aren't you contacting a lawyer?


Because it's one photo. I am confident that she will remove it, and if not Facebook will (I have had to do this before)
No need for me to turn into a psycho. People make mistakes and I'm just hoping she will be made aware that us photographers keep on top of our work and copyright and not to do it again............. :/


----------



## YoungPhotoGirl (Jun 1, 2015)

480sparky said:


> YoungPhotoGirl said:
> 
> 
> > Yes I am. And I won't take this thread down until my photo is removed. ...........
> ...


Can you please remove yourself from this thread. I don't need to be insulted. Thanks.


----------



## Buckster (Jun 1, 2015)

YoungPhotoGirl said:


> Feel sorry for you guys!!!


It's not so bad.  We technically have copyright at the moment of creation here too, which can shut someone down.  But if you want to get PAID (I do), then you need the registered copyright.  And it's nice to have the certificate as prima facie, whenever it comes up, then there's really no question.


----------



## YoungPhotoGirl (Jun 1, 2015)

Buckster said:


> YoungPhotoGirl said:
> 
> 
> > Feel sorry for you guys!!!
> ...


That's good to hear, was hoping it was more widespread. Saves a lot of heartache for us NZ photographers.


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 1, 2015)

YoungPhotoGirl said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > YoungPhotoGirl said:
> ...




No problem.


----------



## jsecordphoto (Jun 1, 2015)

gonna have to agree with 480sparky here, I'd be focusing on taking legal action rather than complaining here. I've had images stolen hundreds of times (most are harmless, instagram and pinterest shares that are resolved quickly),  I just issue a DMCA notice


----------



## YoungPhotoGirl (Jun 1, 2015)

jsecordphoto said:


> gonna have to agree with 480sparky here, I'd be focusing on taking legal action rather than complaining here. I've had images stolen hundreds of times (most are harmless, instagram and pinterest shares that are resolved quickly),  I just issue a DMCA notice


Honestly, I am quite a trusting person. I am sure when she reads my comment she will remove it- otherwise yes I will issue a notice.


----------



## Buckster (Jun 1, 2015)

YoungPhotoGirl said:


> I WOULD not create a photograph like she has with MY photo, so it is misrepresenting me as a business if someone becomes aware that its the same photo.


I'm sure Patrick Cariou  feels the same way, but that doesn't seem to have been a factor.


----------



## bribrius (Jun 1, 2015)

YoungPhotoGirl said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > So instead of complaining to a bunch of strangers on an innernets forum, why aren't you contacting a lawyer?
> ...


I have been through that with facebook and in my case they  have made them take them down (or asked them to i wasn't privy to the convo) so they ended up removed either way. I am not sure how it works on there now though, that was a while ago.


----------



## YoungPhotoGirl (Jun 1, 2015)

Buckster said:


> YoungPhotoGirl said:
> 
> 
> > I WOULD not create a photograph like she has with MY photo, so it is misrepresenting me as a business if someone becomes aware that its the same photo.
> ...


Patrick Cariou ? Sorry I'm unaware of this story?


----------



## jsecordphoto (Jun 1, 2015)

Do you include in your contracts that the model cannot alter or use the images like this?


----------



## YoungPhotoGirl (Jun 1, 2015)

bribrius said:


> YoungPhotoGirl said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...


Agreed! Every time I have put a notice through Facebook my image has been removed and they have been warned. I think its scares them more actually because facebook warns them they could terminate their account


----------



## YoungPhotoGirl (Jun 1, 2015)

jsecordphoto said:


> Do you include in your contracts that the model cannot alter or use the images like this?


Yes I do  and it is also stated not for commercial use.


----------



## Buckster (Jun 1, 2015)

YoungPhotoGirl said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > YoungPhotoGirl said:
> ...


He's the photographer that was in a big copyright war with Richard Prince last time:

Richard Prince Triumphs Over Copyright With New Court Decision - ANIMAL


----------



## YoungPhotoGirl (Jun 1, 2015)

[/QUOTE]He's the photographer that was in a big copyright war with Richard Prince last time:

Richard Prince Triumphs Over Copyright With New Court Decision - ANIMAL[/QUOTE]
Oh I will have to read that! *Thanks!*


----------



## YoungPhotoGirl (Jun 1, 2015)

Buckster said:


> YoungPhotoGirl said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...


Woah. What the?
Its like he used Gimp to do those edits!!
Does this Richard guy have any real talent?


----------



## Buckster (Jun 1, 2015)

YoungPhotoGirl said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > YoungPhotoGirl said:
> ...


Well, that's always quite the subjective question / answer.  He makes a HUGE amount of money from his work.


----------



## YoungPhotoGirl (Jun 1, 2015)

Buckster said:


> YoungPhotoGirl said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...


Can't believe this goes to court and he's allowed to do this to photographers.
He should at least have to pay for use of their image.
Its unfair at the very least.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 1, 2015)

She's not using YOUR image,exactly....she has created a substantially different image, and is using it sparingly, and it can not be mistaken for your image...I think she can actually claim it's a transformative, original, new work....and under fair use, she could probably make a claim to it...there's some wiggle room on her end, I think, just based on the way the laws have been written. I think you are also being a big baby about it...I have 10,000 of my own images on line, and periodically BOTS come by and download damned near every single image, overnight. Some of the images have been on-line for over 10 years, and multiple of my University of Oregon cheerleader images have appeared all over the friggin world wide web...I don't complain about it.

Is HER use of the photo of HER actually _causing you to lose money_? Is she directly _earning money off of the one_, tiny image of her, in her portfolio of hundreds of Facebook images? Did YOU actually create that photo where she's in the river, at the waterfalls, by the power plant or whatever, in sepia tone? Would the removal of her image from her portfolio cause her great financial harm?  _Does the presence of that image in her Facebook portfolio bring her significant financial benefit_? I think you need to get in touch with somebody who can explain the actual term "*commercial use*" AS it might be argued in a fair use case with a substantial, obvious transformative use of the source image of plaintif...I seriously think this would be bounced right out of court if you could ever find an attorney dumb or unscrupulous enough to take your case.

She is using this image, the one SHE created, for promotional use...she's not being payed for that image in any direct way. if the image goes or stays on her Facebook samples gallery, I do not think its presence or absence would have one iota of positive nor negative financial benefit to her... ergo, not commercial use...and since its transformed, it's HER creation...

I personally think YOU are not being smart by naming this woman,making this post, and making allegations of improper use and then publishing your allegations on the world wide web...I think you are actually setting yourself up for a slam-dunk countersuit for libeling her by name, and impugning her reputation on the basis of a dubious set of allegations.

Oh....on May 23, I had 2,400 images bot downloaded, overnight...and I'm not complaining or tracking them down... but hey, I'm not a lawyer. and I have not seen your contract with her. Maybe you have an iron-clad, watertight case.

http://thevisualcommunicationguy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Infographic_CanIUseThatPicture4.jpg


----------



## bribrius (Jun 1, 2015)

YoungPhotoGirl said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > YoungPhotoGirl said:
> ...


well in this case it may not be quite as easy. As she is actually in the photo. I never reported a photo with the person actually in it. curious to know how this works out. Personally, for that case i wouldn't worry too much about it. Suppose i understand though it was using "your" photo.
  For future reference, you might want to be careful what exactly you post online and on facebook as well. I ended up booting all kinds of people off mine and limiting what type of things i put online and started using small low quality files when i do. Especially on facebook, people share/take.borrow/steal whatever all the time it is the norm.


----------



## YoungPhotoGirl (Jun 1, 2015)

Derrel said:


> She's not using YOUR image,exactly....she has created a substantially different image, and is using it sparingly, and it can not be mistaken for your image...I think she can actually claim it's a transformative, original, new work....and under fair use, she could probably make a claim to it...there's some wiggle room on her end, I think, just based on the way the laws have been written. I think you are also being a big baby about it...I have 10,000 of my own images on line, and periodically BOTS come by and download damned near every single image, overnight. Some of the images have been on-line for over 10 years, and multiple of my University of Oregon cheerleader images have appeared all over the friggin world wide web...I don't complain about it.
> 
> Is HER use of the photo of HER costing you to lose money? Is she directly earning money off of the one, tiny image of her, in her portfolio of hundreds of Facebook images? Did YOU actually create that image of her in the short where she's in the river, at the falls, by the power plant or whatever? Would the removal of her image from her portfolio cause her great financial harm?  Does the presence of that image in her Facebook portfolio bring her significant financial benefit? I think you need to get in touch with somebody who can explain the actual term "commerical use" AS it might be argued in a fair use case with a substantial, obvious transformative use of the source image of plaintif...I seriously think this would be bounced right out of court if you could ever find an attorney dumb or unscrupulous enough to take your case.
> 
> ...


Just because something doesn't bother you, doesn't man the same for others.
I send a great deal of time, money and effort on my images and haven't released them as stock images either.
I can't just steal stock images off the internet so why should another photographer steal my work, and use it for their own benefit and financial gain?
Its a matter of morals I'm afraid.
And hell, you may be right- but I still have the right to be annoyed, and someone else might see this post and learn a thing or two and there is nothing wrong with education of any sort.


----------



## YoungPhotoGirl (Jun 1, 2015)

And personally without my photo, the photo would just be a separate collection of stolen images anyway.
She has only placed them together (very poorly, sorry but its true...)
If this was a mural for in her own home- great.
But I deserve to be paid appropriately (and so do the others) if she is using my image as a stock image.


----------



## YoungPhotoGirl (Jun 1, 2015)

And in NEWZEALAND this is the Fair Use Act.
Which is different to overseas:

*Exclusions and fair dealing[edit]*
The Act allows for certain permitted acts to be exempted from copyright restrictions.


Fair dealing; for purpose of criticism, review, news reporting, research, private study.
certain educational purposes
time shifting of TV programmes for viewing at a later time
format shifting of music
back up of computer programmes
making copies in Braille.


----------



## bribrius (Jun 1, 2015)

Derrel said:


> She's not using YOUR image,exactly....she has created a substantially different image, and is using it sparingly, and it can not be mistaken for your image...I think she can actually claim it's a transformative, original, new work....and under fair use, she could probably make a claim to it...there's some wiggle room on her end, I think, just based on the way the laws have been written. I think you are also being a big baby about it...I have 10,000 of my own images on line, and periodically BOTS come by and download damned near every single image, overnight. Some of the images have been on-line for over 10 years, and multiple of my University of Oregon cheerleader images have appeared all over the friggin world wide web...I don't complain about it.
> 
> Is HER use of the photo of HER actually _causing you to lose money_? Is she directly _earning money off of the one_, tiny image of her, in her portfolio of hundreds of Facebook images? Did YOU actually create that photo where she's in the river, at the waterfalls, by the power plant or whatever, in sepia tone? Would the removal of her image from her portfolio cause her great financial harm?  _Does the presence of that image in her Facebook portfolio bring her significant financial benefit_? I think you need to get in touch with somebody who can explain the actual term "*commercial use*" AS it might be argued in a fair use case with a substantial, obvious transformative use of the source image of plaintif...I seriously think this would be bounced right out of court if you could ever find an attorney dumb or unscrupulous enough to take your case.
> 
> ...


why would you want that? Or let that happen? I think i would flip out just on principle.


----------



## runnah (Jun 1, 2015)

Let's all take a moment and relax.

We can all get our points across in a nice way.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 1, 2015)

Look at "_transformative work_", and have a lawyer look into what _commercial usage_ actually means to the New Zealand courts...the image you are complaining about has 20% your original shot, and the remaining 80% is her creation...the two images are not even remotely similar...one is a straightforward, rather pedestrian portrait, the other is some oddball avante garde art piece...which she created using a photo of her own face and body...I think you need to look at transformative work and BOOM...your case nose dives, hits the ground, and explodes in a flame ball....

But again...I'm not a lawyer...and I'm not in New Zealand...


----------



## YoungPhotoGirl (Jun 1, 2015)

Have received a message back.
She is claiming its not a business page (even though its listed as one), not that I'm worried about that as much anyway.
Its the blatant use without permission.
I have dug into the NZ laws surrounding this, and researched previous cases in the last 30 minutes, and it is definitely illegal.
Will keep everyone updated.


----------



## Dave442 (Jun 1, 2015)

And some feedback on the current Richard Price artwork that I found interesting:
The Latest Richard Prince Controversy Clarified by Patent and Copyright Attorney John Arsenault Fstoppers

As Derrel noted, the new image uses your photo as part of a larger composite or collage. An artist here has shows with collages that are made up of things cut out of magazine pictures and then scanned and photoshopped, printed, framed and sold. I had asked the artist one time about their use of the parts of photos and was given the fair-use answer.

Now it would be interesting if this photographer had this image in a 40x60cm hanging for sale at her gallery. As for the image on FB, I would be interested to know if it is removed.


----------



## YoungPhotoGirl (Jun 1, 2015)

The laws in Newzealand are made in  favour of the artist, which is great.
I wish the same could be said for America. But laws are different.
Here's the example:
American Fair Use Law-
In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner. In other words, fair use is a defense against a claim of copyright infringement. If your use qualifies as a fair use, then it would not be considered an illegal infringement. - See more at: What Is Fair Use - Copyright Overview by Rich Stim - Stanford Copyright and Fair Use Center

Newzealand Fair Use Law (known as fair dealing here)-
*Can I make "fair use" of material in New Zealand?*
Yes you can. But our copyright law defines "fair use" more specifically. It applies only to copying for the purpose of criticism, review, news reporting, research or private study.

The Act allows for certain permitted acts to be exempted from copyright restrictions.


Fair dealing; for purpose of criticism, review, news reporting, research, private study.
certain educational purposes
time shifting of TV programmes for viewing at a later time
format shifting of music
back up of computer programmes
making copies in Braille.


----------



## YoungPhotoGirl (Jun 1, 2015)

Hopefully another unaware NZ'er now knows this is illegal too 
Learn something new every day....


----------



## tirediron (Jun 1, 2015)

YoungPhotoGirl said:


> Yes I am. And I won't take this thread down until my photo is removed. I WOULD not create a photograph like she has with MY photo, so it is misrepresenting me as a business if someone becomes aware that its the same photo.


First and foremost, I sympathize with you completely however two wrongs do not make a right, and therefore the other images have been removed.  With respect to taking down this thread, that's not a decision you are empowered to make.  

Finally, what are New Zealand's laws on derivative works?  It's possible that she may not be violating your copyright (I don't know, I know nothing about your law, but since yours are somewhat similar to ours, it's a possibility).


----------



## YoungPhotoGirl (Jun 1, 2015)

tirediron said:


> YoungPhotoGirl said:
> 
> 
> > Yes I am. And I won't take this thread down until my photo is removed. I WOULD not create a photograph like she has with MY photo, so it is misrepresenting me as a business if someone becomes aware that its the same photo.
> ...


I've attached the laws to do with derivative law, and it is only acceptable for education and the like.


----------



## tirediron (Jun 1, 2015)

YoungPhotoGirl said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > YoungPhotoGirl said:
> ...


I'm certainly not qualified to interpret them, so I won't even try, and I don't dispute what you say, just offering a thought.


----------



## snowbear (Jun 1, 2015)

Good luck.


----------



## tirediron (Jun 1, 2015)

YoungPhotoGirl said:


> The laws in Newzealand are made in  favour of the artist, which is great.
> I wish the same could be said for America. But laws are different.
> Here's the example:
> American Fair Use Law-
> ...


Again, not familiar with the laws in NZ, but you're citing fair-use, NOT transformation/derivative work.  Are you certain your interpretation is correct?  One thing that ALL countries with a legal system have in common is that the system is so complicated as to make it virtually impossible for the layman to accurately interpret it.  In fact in many cases, lawyers can only take a 'best guess' and judges will make their own interpretation based on precedence, experience and_* their *_understanding.


----------



## snowbear (Jun 1, 2015)

You really should contact a lawyer.


----------



## Tinderbox (UK) (Jun 2, 2015)

Hi.

Did i read that if you take a screen shot on your computer, rather than save the original photo, you are not braking any law as it`s just the same as taking a photo in a public place.

This might be wrong as i might have just dreamed it up. 

John.


----------



## snowbear (Jun 2, 2015)

Tinderbox (UK) said:


> Hi.
> 
> Did i read that if you take a screen shot on your computer, rather than save the original photo, you are not braking any law as it`s just the same as taking a photo in a public place.
> 
> ...


Only if you are a monkey. or know a monkey, or smell like a monkey . . . something like that.


----------



## pjaye (Jun 2, 2015)

YoungPhotoGirl said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > YoungPhotoGirl said:
> ...



Nice editing to remove the insult from the original post. I would suggest you put 480sparky on ignore, they seldom contribute anything helpful to a thread. They simply have to be center of attention. 

Good luck getting your photo removed, that sucks!


----------



## KmH (Jun 2, 2015)

An online photography forum is not a reliable place to be seeking legal advice.
Here in the USA copyright is also established as soon as a work of intellectual property is recorded on a tangible medium.

Registering US copyrights with the US Copyright office secures US copyright owners the option of pursuing an infringement award for statutory or actual damages. Without registration we can only file suit for actual damages.
Those US copyright laws dealinfg with registration are defined in another section of US Copyright law separate from where it states that copyright begins as soon as a work is recorded in a tangible medium.

New Zealand copyright law may well have a similar copyright registration requirement codified in another section of New Zealand copyright law, since many countries do.

So as mentioned you really need to consult with an attorney familiar with New Zealand copyright laws.

BTW- This is what the Federal US Copyright office says about Fair Use in the USA:
More Information on Fair Use U.S. Copyright Office


----------



## gsgary (Jun 2, 2015)

She has got a bit of a belly on her for a youngster


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jun 2, 2015)

If the photo was on Facebook it puts it under their Terms & Conditions. I'm not up on their latest terms for usage and don't know for sure how that affects this.

It's hard to know since copyright is different in another country but the best procedure I think is to have gotten a release along with a contract to be covered. If the client or customer violated the contract that was signed that would seem to make it worth contacting a lawyer.

Did she pay for the photos? I'm not clear if this was a client. Seems like once she would have paid then she'd be able to use and post them, and if she has a digital file I don't know that there's a good way to prevent the photo being altered. I think that's why photographers often provide a print as well as an appropriately sized copy for social media use.


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Jun 2, 2015)

People use my photos all the time, and by that, I do not mean once or twice- literally, all of the time. I find it kind of flattering, actually.


----------



## otherprof (Jun 2, 2015)

YoungPhotoGirl said:


> I have reported the copyright violation to Facebook and left a message,
> But OMG what did she do to it!!!!!
> (This was taken a few years ago too lol embarassing as it is- its still better than that atrocity!!!!)
> Anything else I can do?
> ...


Call me Ishmael, but I wouldn't get into an argument with a cannibal.


----------



## Dave442 (Jun 2, 2015)

As you took the photo and kept the rights you may want to do something with the photo, such as happened with this photo:
How my 1992 prom picture ended up on HBO s John Oliver show - MarketWatch


----------



## pixmedic (Jun 3, 2015)

i dont know about anyone else, but im more interested in what the persons response was, if any.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 3, 2015)

Only an International Copyright/Patent / etc lawyer can really provide accurate input and resolve this.


----------



## fjrabon (Jun 3, 2015)

the biggest issue an attorney would have here is what are the damages?  Say all your wildest dreams come true, you'd get a settlement for like $15 and have to pay $5000 in attorney fees.  An attorney will likely just draft you a professional, but sternly worded and vaguely threatening cease and desist letter.  And charge you a couple hundred dollars for that.  Is this image worth that to you?

I get your frustration.  I get your righteous indignation.  But at some point you have to ask yourself if it's worth it to YOU to fight this?  Both in a time and energy sense, and if you go the lawyer route, a monetary sense.

Also keep in mind what she's doing isn't "illegal" the worst that can happen to her is that a court forces her to pay a relatively nominal amount of money.  And it would cost you a lot to get there, even if EVERYTHING goes your way.


----------



## chuasam (Jun 6, 2015)

Hers is technically a derivative piece and while not ethically perfect, it's totally legal.


----------



## KmH (Jun 6, 2015)

Oh? In what countries?
Here in the US the copyright owner also owns rights to derivatives based on the copyright owners work.



> US Copyright Basics circular
> Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:
> • reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords
> • *prepare derivative works based upon the work*


----------



## tirediron (Jun 7, 2015)

chuasam said:


> Hers is technically a derivative piece and while not ethically perfect, it's totally legal.


I somehow doubt that any of us are qualified to make authoritative statements on New Zealand copyright law.


----------



## Fred Berg (Jun 7, 2015)

The thing about posting images on the Internet is, people are very happy to take the free exposure on offer for their work but get very upset when others also take advantage of the gratis culture, which is a core element of the online experience, and help themselves to their photos.


----------



## waday (Jun 7, 2015)

So, I came late to this party and missed the original image. Can you just alter it slightly to make it yours again and repost?


----------



## thereyougo! (Jun 11, 2015)

I'm confused as to why you would go on a public rant, naming and shaming when the alleged transgression took place so recently.  Why didn't you just contact her and speak about it with her face to face or over the telephone rather than rant about it on a public forum.

Whatever it is she does in the future, and she needs a photographer to pay to do images for her, guess who she will NOT be calling?

I understand you being upset about a possible theft of an image, but you need to get perspective and deal with it appropriately.  The way you're dealing with it is a bit like getting a cold hamburger at Macdonald's and complaining to the global CEO about it rather than just going to the counter, saying it's cold and getting a replacement.

People are just too quick IMO to take the nuclear option before exploring more amicable methods.

If you treat all your clients like this, good luck in keeping any business going!


----------



## jsecordphoto (Jun 11, 2015)

thereyougo! said:


> I'm confused as to why you would go on a public rant, naming and shaming when the alleged transgression took place so recently.  Why didn't you just contact her and speak about it with her face to face or over the telephone rather than rant about it on a public forum.
> 
> Whatever it is she does in the future, and she needs a photographer to pay to do images for her, guess who she will NOT be calling?
> 
> ...



I'm pretty sure she's left this thread a while ago. I see this happening a lot lately on here- new member comes on and either complains about something, or asks for critique, then when they don't hear what they want- they leave.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 11, 2015)

jsecordphoto said:


> I'm pretty sure she's left this thread a while ago. I see this happening a lot lately on here- new member comes on and either complains about something, or asks for critique, then when they don't hear what they want- they leave.


OP has been a member since 2012
last online June 2nd
but generally agree on your statement of people wanting confirmation on what they think and not getting it.


----------



## thereyougo! (Jun 11, 2015)

jsecordphoto said:


> thereyougo! said:
> 
> 
> > I'm confused as to why you would go on a public rant, naming and shaming when the alleged transgression took place so recently.  Why didn't you just contact her and speak about it with her face to face or over the telephone rather than rant about it on a public forum.
> ...



The description under the number of posts is misleading.  She's not a newbie as joined 3 years ago and posted 187 times. I've done 200+ more posts than you yet, I'm only one step above a newbie yet you are a step above.  Not sure why!


----------



## jsecordphoto (Jun 11, 2015)

thereyougo! said:


> The description under the number of posts is misleading.  She's not a newbie as joined 3 years ago and posted 187 times. I've done 200+ more posts than you yet, I'm only one step above a newbie yet you are a step above.  Not sure why!



Ah, didn't even check that. Just assumed because I hadn't seen her post at all really since I've been a member. You know what they say about assuming...

My "title" on here being above yours may have to do with posting more photos, getting more likes on posts/photos...who knows. Not sure how all that works


----------



## tirediron (Jun 13, 2015)

The post-count titles are one thing that is still partly broken as a result of the transfer to the new software.  Those who have accounts created AFTER the change are probably fine, but if you joined before, yours could be messed up.  Of course you could always become a supporting member and choose whatever title you want...  Just sayin'...


----------



## bribrius (Jun 13, 2015)

tirediron said:


> The post-count titles are one thing that is still partly broken as a result of the transfer to the new software.  Those who have accounts created AFTER the change are probably fine, but if you joined before, yours could be messed up.  Of course you could always become a supporting member and choose whatever title you want...  Just sayin'...


i don't even get the supporting member thing. I thought the site was FOR profit and paid with primarily with ads and traffic.
Every time you post a photo or comment you are supporting the site, which far as i know is for profit anyway. 
Not like this is a non profit and volunteer group..


----------



## tirediron (Jun 13, 2015)

The supporting member thing is just another revenue stream... that's all.


----------



## bribrius (Jun 13, 2015)

tirediron said:


> The supporting member thing is just another revenue stream... that's all.


no one is volunteering to support me. what hell.......


----------



## pixmedic (Jun 13, 2015)

bribrius said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > The supporting member thing is just another revenue stream... that's all.
> ...



you seem unaffected by the site having a supporting member feature. 
im not seeing the issue here. 

also, people volunteer to support the forum because the forum provides something useful. just sayin.


----------



## Overread (Jun 13, 2015)

bribrius said:


> Not like this is a non profit and volunteer group..



Well all site content and general moderation is voluntary and unpaid. 
The site obviously has costs in its upkeep and maintenance which is dealt with by the owning parent company.


----------



## bribrius (Jun 13, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > tirediron said:
> ...


yeah, i honestly don't care either way. Mostly if i entertain the idea of becoming a supporting member i would contemplate the reasoning. The site absorbs a lot of free photos and traffic, things other sites would pay for.


----------



## thereyougo! (Jun 13, 2015)

All that being said many get benefit from the site so it's a win-win


----------



## bribrius (Jun 13, 2015)

Overread said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > Not like this is a non profit and volunteer group..
> ...


The mods should be paid, just on the babysitting principle if it is a for profit site.
You all are getting screwed...  At least a little $$$ for each of you as a token of appreciation so you aren't working for free.


----------



## pixmedic (Jun 13, 2015)

bribrius said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...



free photos and traffic? other sites would pay for?
what forums PAY people for traffic and photos?

websites get "paid" for advertising, often based on click-through traffic numbers. 
im still unclear on your actual issue. 
yes this site is for profit, and yes they have multiple ways of generating that profit, and yes, im sure different sites use different methods and tactics... but _*most *_of the forums i have ever seen use a paid membership in some form or another to offer additional benefits to members willing to kick in a little money.  some photography forums dont let you use the buy and sell sections unless you are a paying member. some forums dont let you post pictures unless you are a paying member. 

this forum actually gives you quite a lot for your free membership.
while our page views do help to generate revenue through the advertising, it still does not cost you anything to participate here in most capacities.


----------



## pixmedic (Jun 13, 2015)

bribrius said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...



technically we are paid, from a certain point of view.
Mods are granted supporting member status.
so...$25 a year?
plus, were not conscripted. any mod that doesnt want to volunteer their time here isnt required to.


----------



## YoungPhotoGirl (Jun 17, 2015)

UPDATE
The photo was removed by Facebook as a copyright infringement by NZ Copyright LAW
Thanks for advice and comments everyone.


----------



## bribrius (Jun 17, 2015)

YoungPhotoGirl said:


> UPDATE
> The photo was removed by Facebook as a copyright infringement by NZ Copyright LAW
> Thanks for advice and comments everyone.


thanks for the update. I was curious as to how this one would work out.


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 19, 2015)

YoungPhotoGirl said:


> Yes I am. And I won't take this thread down until my photo is removed. I WOULD not create a photograph like she has with MY photo, so it is misrepresenting me as a business if someone becomes aware that its the same photo.





YoungPhotoGirl said:


> UPDATE
> The photo was removed by Facebook as a copyright infringement by NZ Copyright LAW
> Thanks for advice and comments everyone.




Good.  Now maybe you can step back and contemplate your duplicity.


----------

