Steal Pictures from Photobucket


It should be relatively straightforward to prove that one owns the copyright. If it is your photo, you own the copyright...that's the law. So, you send facebook a copy of the original high density file with all the embedded data.

Also, your photos are uploaded on a a certain date. facebook or photobucket can verify the upload date. If the other claimant's dates are subsequent, they don't have any legal case to claim.
 
kenw said:
I still very much care, it is just that being mad about it doesn't fix it and only affects me. One can care a great deal without being angry. I can choose to let it affect me, or I can choose to not. If I let others determine my happiness, they're in charge. I choose to be in charge of me and determine my happiness myself.

But I do understand your point.
Click to expand...

Poor wording on my part. Your right. You shouldn't let others have that control of you. What you said is what I meant to say. Just don't become numb and not care is my point. To many today just shrug everything off. You posted here and spoke your piece and that is good. It's the people that just say ohwell nothing I can do about it and don't respond in the slightest. I don't advocate going and picking a fight but you have to care.

Good point
 
Selector said:
...If it is your photo, you own the copyright...that's the law.
Click to expand...

+1

This is true regardless of any "copyright" notices that may or may not be present - You took it, you own the copyright. "Fair use" (typically defined as not-for-profit) is OK however - Hence printing a pic for *personal* modelling purposes is not considered infringement.

So, you send facebook a copy of the original high density file with all the embedded data.
Click to expand...

Here I respectfully disagree - About the last thing they want is a bunch of 2-6MB pix showing up! There's some standard boiler plate text in which you swear that they're yours (subject to perjury charges if they're not) and provide them the links - Apparently, given that the pix will be gone PDQ.

Also, your photos are uploaded on a a certain date. facebook or photobucket can verify the upload date. If the other claimant's dates are subsequent, they don't have any legal case to claim.
Click to expand...

Not true unfortunately - Upload date doesn't mean anything in their eyes - You've got to "stake the claim" (using the correct verbiage) and they'll respond.

Cheers,
Ian
 
Were these pictures being used to sell their website, their product, or claimed as their own?

It sucks they were heisted, and not given proper recognition to whom the belong, but if they are simply collected and reused then they more than likely fall under the Fair Use Act and there isn't really anything you can do about it.

Now, in College I took a picture of a friend doing a burnout at a cook out party. Only later to find Bamachips used that picture, photoshopped in more smoke to cover the stuff in the bed of the truck, and used it on their homepage for their tuner chip. Without my permission, without asking me, without credit. As soon as I confronted them with email they immediately took it down. They were using my picture to endorse a product.

Had they just been another joe blow adding my picture to their online collection, there wasn't anything I could have done.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
diburning said:
I think that Fair Use still requires credit to be given to the photographer/copyright owner.
Click to expand...
Last time I looked it does but it's frequently interpreted differently from one area to another. On the other hand I've seen a few cases where someone posted a photo with the info on it and giving complete credit to the person who took the photo and the photo being seen by said person who then starts a fight that could sour every grape in a vineyard from 20 miles away.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Now if proper credit is given or at least and attempt to proparly give it is made...AND... its for personal use not for the gain of the user then why would anyone throw up a stink. If your that concerned about your pictures then that person should think twice about posting them. Personally I would take it as a complement when given proper credit. If these pictures are for the purpose of making money or for postarity, then extra measure should be taken to prevent their mis-use. I know there are ways to keep people from using your stuff. Low quality, small pictures, water marking etc.
 
d_sinsley said:
.... Personally I would take it as a complement when given proper credit. ....
Click to expand...

And you'll live a longer, happier, stress-reduced life. I've given away tons of pics, even prints from 4x6 to 24x36 posters, 1000s of bookmarks, etc. Folks like them and the income they would have produced isn't worth the hassle.
 
fast_ian said:
+1

This is true regardless of any "copyright" notices that may or may not be present - You took it, you own the copyright. "Fair use" (typically defined as not-for-profit) is OK however - Hence printing a pic for *personal* modelling purposes is not considered infringement.



Here I respectfully disagree - About the last thing they want is a bunch of 2-6MB pix showing up! There's some standard boiler plate text in which you swear that they're yours (subject to perjury charges if they're not) and provide them the links - Apparently, given that the pix will be gone PDQ.



Not true unfortunately - Upload date doesn't mean anything in their eyes - You've got to "stake the claim" (using the correct verbiage) and they'll respond.

Cheers,
Ian
Click to expand...

Ian, IF,..a big IF, the site in question is at all interested in dealing with copyright infringement, and I'm quite sure facebook would want to settle it definitively on penalty of claim, they will solicit the information that will determine the veracity of the claim, and that means being willing, perhaps by proxy in a law firm, to receive the full density image in its original format complete with embedded data. One could offer it in advance when making the request for intervention, and if the agreement comes to intercede, that is when they would be receptive.

The upload date; if your record of the image's use puts its placement in your gallery even an hour earlier than that of the competitor's, he will have a tough time claiming that it is in fact you who has infringed. Ergo, he remains the respondent, and still on his heels.
 
Well, copy wright laws, and fair use laws are very convoluted and vague. Basically, from how I read it, you can copy the picture/work for "educational" value and be fine. Educational being of questionable definition interpretation as that is not defined. If I'm just copying someones pics to do my own research (such as me copying a lot of black and white mining pictures) and storing them online for my use and use of others, with no attempt to make gain from them, then there is no infringement.

However, if the owner of the property, either intellectually or physically requests me to remove that material from being openly accessible, then I'd have an obligation to do so. But, under no legal direction to do so. The law vaguely says that if there is a dispute as such, then seeking legal advice is the path to take. Nothing clear cut and dry.


I guess from Larry's OP that I'm not clear as to what he really found. If he just found his pics on someone else's profile then again I'd be adamant in stating that the other guy/girl is utilizing the fair act accordingly. But, if the other person were selling the property, claiming it was theirs, etc, that would indicate a copy wright infringement.


One thing to note though, if you take the time to read the links below, is no where does it specifically state that credit is or has to be given to the original owner of the property. Unless the copy wright mark is considered the "credit given" and implied as a requirement when reproducing property. Even then, "giving credit" isn't discussed.

As to the OP and the title used on the thread, Larry is implying that his pics were stolen. They weren't. He still has the originals and the original digital copy correct? To be stolen from him he'd have to be without them now and in the possession of the other people. They just just have copys. They weren't stolen, just borrowed/copied.


Copywrite law of the USA: Owners rights of copywrite work (section 106 and 106a)

Copywrite law of the USA: Limits on exlusive rights: Fair Use

Fair Use



Maybe someone can read legalese better than me, or wants to read the other sub sections to dissect the entire "law" as I just tried to focus on what seems to apply here and may have missed something entirely.
 
Selector said:
Ian, IF,..a big IF, the site in question is at all interested in dealing with copyright infringement, and I'm quite sure facebook would want to settle it definitively on penalty of claim, they will solicit the information that will determine the veracity of the claim, and that means being willing, perhaps by proxy in a law firm, to receive the full density image in its original format complete with embedded data. One could offer it in advance when making the request for intervention, and if the agreement comes to intercede, that is when they would be receptive.

The upload date; if your record of the image's use puts its placement in your gallery even an hour earlier than that of the competitor's, he will have a tough time claiming that it is in fact you who has infringed. Ergo, he remains the respondent, and still on his heels.
Click to expand...

I agree with the other party being the "respondent", but I'm certain they'll basically laugh at you if upload date is the basis of the claim - As I said, there's some standard wording that they're after. The EXIF data and full size image *may* help, but I honestly wouldn't bother sending it unless they ask.

D94R said:
As to the OP and the title used on the thread, Larry is implying that his pics were stolen. They weren't. He still has the originals and the original digital copy correct? To be stolen from him he'd have to be without them now and in the possession of the other people. They just just have copys. They weren't stolen, just borrowed/copied.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I've got to respectfully disagree here - This is the argument that's often used to try and justify *stealing* S/W - "Well, I only made a copy, he's still got the original!"..... As a long time S/W jock, I wanted to get paid for *all* copies of my S/W, not just one!

I'm a little out of date, but IIRC the law is pretty clear on this point at least - Making copies of S/W (and other intellectual property, such as photos) is indeed *stealing*.

Now, as already noted, "fair use" (education, research and the particularly onerous "newsworthy") is a huge grey area - Newspapers can (and have) "stolen" pix posted to the 'net and used 'em without paying as they were "newsworthy" - Nothing the copyright holder can do.....

Cheers,
Ian
 
Here's a good example of what needs to be done;

1. YOU must be the copyright owner of this material, or a legal proxy of the copyright owner. Otherwise, your requests will be rejected.

2. Copy and paste the exact URLs from our website where your content is located into an email. This is required by the DMCA, and our automated system will reject emails that do not have URLs to our content pages. Do not send URLs to thumbnail pages, as there are multiple images on these pages and we will not know which are yours.

3. If your DMCA notice refers to content you discovered via our NNTP service (i.e. via a newsreader), rather than a web image on our web galleries, then you need to provide the following information instead of a URL:

Newsgroup
Message-id
Subject:
Date of posting
Information sufficient to identify the specific content which is the subject of the complaint

4. Include a formal statement in your email that you are indeed the copyright owner or legal proxy for the copyright owner.

5. Include a formal statement in your email that you are certain that the material is not, in fact, authorized by the copyright owner or law.

6. Digitally sign the email as specified in the DMCA. Our system will validate the digital signature, and invalid digital signatures will be rejected automatically. It is the copyright owner's responsibility to understand the implementation of a digitally signed email.

7. Do not include other correspondance in the email, it is processed by an automated program.

8. Include a formal statement that you understand the legal implications of providing false information in this request, and that all information is accurate.

9. Send the email to the address below. Copyright requests to other email addresses will not be processed.
Click to expand...

Not all systems are as automated as this, but the content of the email *must* follow the above.

Cheers,
Ian
 
Selector said:
Ian, IF,..a big IF, the site in question is at all interested in dealing with copyright infringement....
Click to expand...

BTW, forgot to mention - *If* the site is US based (which is a big if of course!) they damn well better be "interested"! Assuming the complaint follows the guidelines defined in the DMCA, they are subject to *serious* fines (and, IIRC, jail time) if they don't respond in a "timely fashion".

No if's, ands or buts about it!

Conversely, if "You" make a false claim, it *will* cost you - Possibly lots......

Cheers,
Ian
 
I went into Photobucket today & tried to find the guy that was using my Photo's & he's no longer there. I guess PB listened to what I was telling them.:D
 
The answer is blatantly simple..

Do not publish your photo's anywhere in the public domain without an embedded/embossed watermark (even the cheapest photo editing software has the ability to do this) in a prominent place on the photo.. Prominent as in somewhere that can not easily be cloned & brushed out.. (I.E. On the subject matter, not somewhere in a corner!)
 
Someone 'crossposted' to my pictures on PB and caused my bandwidth limit to be exceeded and my account suspended. I went from an average of 500 views per day to over 100,000 in just a day and a half period.
 
Lateral-G said:
Someone 'crossposted' to my pictures on PB and caused my bandwidth limit to be exceeded and my account suspended. I went from an average of 500 views per day to over 100,000 in just a day and a half period.
Click to expand...

cross-posting (ie: someone else posting a link or reference to the place where you posted your pics) is not a copyright violation and in many cases the preferred or even only way to 'post' or refer to someone else's pics.
 
kenw said:
cross-posting (ie: someone else posting a link or reference to the place where you posted your pics) is not a copyright violation and in many cases the preferred or even only way to 'post' or refer to someone else's pics.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was a violation. Just an annoyance when they use up bandwidth....
 
I hate to point out the obvious, but stealing a picture on photobucket is more simple then downloading and uploading to their own account. In fact it's as easy as a single click:
photobucketcopy.jpg


Note: I'm screen capping a shot from my own album. I am the rightful owner, though I had to log out of PB to get the "copy to my album" link to show up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top