Imagerights

I must say that I am very impressed with Imagerights a US based company which pursues infringers on behalf of photographers.  I joined them about six months ago with little expectation but they, and their various international law firms who do the actual pursuing, have done very well for me.  While I still use Leslie Burns of Burns the Attorney (and previously of Photo Attorney) for US registered images where the infringer is US based, Imagerights will pursue non-registered US infringements together with European infringements which were always out of reach for me.  They will only pursue commercial use of images which is normal and economic for their lawyers.  Since April, they have three successful claims for amounts which I would not have received if I had not used their services. Presently, there are 24 active cases and a further 20 under assessment.  Conversely, there are 150 cases which they did not warrant pursuit due to the nature of the website (blogs etc) or they were outside the recovery area.

I have a one year subscription to Imagerights and what this also covers is submitting images to the US Copyright Office on your behalf.  They will submit three separate submissions containing as many as you wish to the USCO which is included in the annual subscription.  Each individual submission must be images which were published in the same year.   Frankly, I was amazed how quickly the submissions were registered.  In the past, it has taken me about six months to actually receive the Certificate of Registration.  They were registered within two weeks and I received the hard copy registrations a couple of days back.

Another benefit of Imagerights is that they will search the images which you have uploaded to their site for you.  You no longer have to sit at your computer right clicking your work to send them to Google Search by Image.  Because I am also a paid member of ImageBrief ("IB"), they submitted over 650 images which I had uploaded to IB to Imagerights thereby saving me a lot of time uploading.

For those who my think that I am being paid by Imagerights for such a glowing report, let me assure you that I am not!  Imagerights was recommended to me by another photographer based in the US who has been very successful to date.  Her work involving celebrities is constantly infringed.  Also a UK photographer I know is also extremely happy with the outcome of his cases on Imagerights.

My one minute of fame Copyright infringement segment on ABC News

Google Search by Image has changed ... for the worse!

As any photographer who wants to protect their work from infringement, Google Search by Image has been a Godsend to those wanting to know where their work is being used without the benefit of a license and to counter the "if its on Google, it must be free" crowd!  A few days back, I found that there was a change to the way that Google Search by Image ("GSI") was indexing this search function.  This was somewhat embarrassing at the time as I was being interviewed by ABC journalist, Anne Barker and being filmed by a film crew from the Australian Broadcasting Commission, and I suddenly could not show her the results of this search engine.  The ABC is doing an online/TV documentary on copyright infringement both in Australia and the US.

To cut a long story short, it would appear that GSI is not actually pinpointing where the image is being used and outcome of which the photographer would have to scroll through pages of websites to pinpoint where the image was being published.  It should be pointed out that GSI is still finding the infringing sites but not where the image is.  I posted on the Google product forum but really didn't get anywhere as the person who was responding to my comments in the end advised that he rarely used the function and was not aware of what the changes were or why. Sigh....so that was a complete waste of time!  I have also Tweeted Google Australia and will post any response, if any.

https://productforums.google.com/forum/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer#!msg/websearch/-1_lqvEbj-Y/D8oKi28AOlQJ

Edit:  Is now back to normal - thank goodness!

Painters using photographs as derivatives

In July 2014, I found that a UK "painter" was using several of my images as derivatives for his paintings.  Prior to this and several years earlier, he had contacted me via my website asking permission to use my work for "study" or personal use. My response was that he could BUT as soon as it became a commercial project, he must contact me for a license.  In July I found derivatives of my work on his website where he was flogging off the "originals" for 2,000 quid and prints at 85 quid.  He also exhibited the derivatives at various galleries in the UK.  My email to his website bounced so I then contacted a journo at the newspaper where he had an article on his prize winning entry in a comp - guess what, it was a derivative of my work!  The journalist interviewed him and he told the reporter that he had asked permission but had "forgotten" about the condition regarding commercial use.  Yeah, right!

I eventually got a response when I left a message on his FB page (amongst his adoring fans) and long story short, he removed all of the work from his website and when I pointed out that there were other photographers who would not take kindly of him using their images  without permission, he removed his whole site.  His paintings included Clint Eastwood, Bishop Tutu, Amy Winehouse (as well as six of my Australian aboriginal images).  Did all of these celebs sit for him? Of course not.  As an experiment, I took one of his images into Photoshop and then took my image with exact size as a layer and guess what, they matched entirely.  Every hair, every wrinkle was in the exact same position.  For him to state that he paints free hand is absolute nonsense.  I am assuming that he projects photographs after having the image copied on to clear plastic or acetate and projecting it on to a form of media, being canvas or whatever and it becomes a "paint by numbers" exercise.  This, of course, is not new. Painters using photographs as derivatives has been around a long time.  You only have to take a look at Fine Art America to see the evidence of this.  

I also question why galleries allow exhibitions of "painters" knowing that they are derivatives, many of which are illegal unless the painter has the written permission of the photographer.   

Under UK law, painters must obtain the written permission of a photographer BEFORE they can use the image as a derivative for their painting.  Also there must be attribution that the original was a photograph and with the photographer's name.  This did not happen in my case.  There was no attribution at all on his website.  Nor was there anything on his Deviant Art website or any other website where he had my work.  I am checking out the UK Small Claims Court and am getting advice from a UK IP attorney as to what my next move should be.  

Understanding Copyright - interview with Carolyn Wright of Photoattorney

An interesting Lynda.com interview on the Copyright Infringement with Carolyn Wright of Photoattorney. A very interesting and informative interview from Carolyn who is my US IP attorney. Click here

Sick of Chinese companies ripping off my work!

I recently found my image of children swimming underwater on a chemical company (Sinoflag Chemical Industry Company Limited) based in China who are using my image as a banner for their website here I sent them the following email: Now I know that Chinese companies do not give a toss about intellectual property of photographers but you are using the image of children swimming underwater on your website banner without the benefit of a license. Perhaps you can contact me (yes I am being optimistic) regarding a license for its use. Yours ever optimistically Sheila Smart I won't hold my breath for any sort of response but I feel that its time to take a stand against Chinese (and other countries') casual stance of intellectual property of photographers. Update: Sent yet another email but, of course, that was ignored as well. There is no point really wasting one's time and effort chasing Chinese websites who are ripping off images.

A win for the good guys!

At last, a win for the hard pressed photographer battling infringement of his work. Article posted in PDN Morel v Getty et al Daniel Morel took on Getty and AFP and won although how much of the $1.2M awarded will he receive is anyone's guess. It took four long years for Morel to successfully pursue Agence France Presse (AFP) and Getty images and he was awarded damages.

Contact links for DMCA takedowns

Thanks a heap to Plagiarism Today for supplying a link of contacts at various sites to assist us in sending out DMCAs.   The link is here

Happy hunting!

Sydney Morning Herald article on Copyright Infringement

The SMH published an article where I am quoted regarding copyright infringements here and the comments of the ill informed are interesting, if not novel.

Advice for those infringing copyright - Please read!

For those infringing copyright of photographers (and maybe the reason why you have clicked on my blog link!), I strongly recommend you read the blog of Seattle based attorney,  Timothy McCormack on why you should NOT infringe the copyright of others, especially if the image has been registered with the US Copyright Office.  Basically, ignorance of the law is no excuse.  Happy reading.

David Hoffman v Drug Abuse Resistance Education (UK)

It would appear that there is now a legal precedent in the United Kingdom regarding websites publishing images without prior licensing the images from the photographer, even if they believed that the images were "covered by Crown copyright and understood that the text and images could be used". An excellent precis of the judgment is given by Alamy photographer DavidC on the Alamy forum

**Tips on dealing with infringers**

This is an update on my previous blog post regarding copyright infringements found by the Google Search Engine. Well, after a series of negotiations, the police department eventually put up their hands and I settled with them for an amount which bought me a nice couple of L lenses. I got an apology from the assistant of the TV personality and another apology from the Sydney television network but I was sorely tempted to forward it to "Media Watch" but I accepted the apology anyway. Because they were not actually commercial blogs, I don't usually bother hassling them for payment. At the moment, I am pursuing several web developers in the US who have knocked off my images without licensing them. You always know if there is a long delay in their response because they are attempting to find out why it happened and whom to blame. My US IP attorney, Carolyn Wright of PhotoAttorney advises that "both the website and the web developer are liable for the infringement but you can only get one award. The company is likely to seek indemnification from the web designer if held liable". A week or so ago, I found one of my images on the front cover of a Turkish book publication but despite numerous emails, I have yet to receive a response. I then checked out a couple of lawyers in Istanbul to pursue the matter on my behalf but, yet again, no response. Amazing! Back to Google! After many emails to an Israeli online newspaper, they settled my account for the princely sum of $250.00 for one of my images on the web newspaper. When they wanted me to send the signed document releasing them, by certified mail to Tel Aviv, I told them that I was certainly not going to spend money on certified mail but they said unless I did so, I would not be paid. I told them that they had a nerve in requiring this as it was THEY who were infringing my copyright and they were getting off lightly. The next email, they backed down and said it was not required. The weird thing was that they wanted me to also fax the documents to them - fax? What's a fax!!! I emailed them a PDF.

So a few tips on what to do after finding an infringing website. For PC: Firstly, take a screen shot. (Keyboard PrtScn) then hit Start > All Programs >Accessories> Paint > Control V and then save the screenshot in My Pictures (or where you can find it again). I am advised by a helpful Fred Miranda member that for Mac, you can take a screen shot by pressing Command + Shift + 3. If you want a screen shot of just a specific area of the screen, you can use Command + Shift + 4 and select the region of the screen to capture. Both of these methods will place an image on your desktop. Secondly, you need to know how long the image has been on the offending website. For this you should go to the Wayback Machine. Here you will find the various pages on the websites on certain days, months, years. You will get the picture as soon as you try it out. This is very handy as many times, when infringers are caught, they tend to tell porkies about how long the image has been on the site. Having the actual dates handy is good ammunition should you require it. Don't get bogged down on blogs. If they don't have any money (and most don't), and its not a commercial blog, demand that they remove the image or alternatively, they place a link to your website. Most are happy to do so. If they don't remove the image or you don't get a response, then send them a DMCA Notice. Here's a link how to do this from National Press Photographers Association

I should add that if you have images on stock libraries, you should couch your email to the possible infringer that "should you have obtained this image through one of my stock libraries, please advise". You don't want to look silly if they have licensed the image but your stock library has been tardy in advising you!

Update:  It would appear that Google, for reasons unknown, is now not showing all sites in their search.  I would strongly recommend that when searching images, go down the left hand column of the Google Search My Image page and click on Past Year and this will bring up far more results than the normal search.  I found this out when going back to get information for my Canadian IP attorney to find that the current search did not come up with the Canadian infringers but using the Past Year function, the sites showed up and indeed the image was still current on their websites.  Of course, many of the sites will have been removed but its worth the extra click as you may be missing sites still currently showing your image.

Happy hunting.

**Copyright infringement*

Yesterday, I found that a large Sydney university had published an image of mine on their website. As I did not recall selling them the image directly, I emailed them asking them how they obtained the image as it could be that one of my stock libraries was yet to advise me of the sale. Imagine my surprise when I received an email from them advising that "It was used inadvertently by the previous Administrator. We request your understanding in this instance as it was not deliberately done". I sent them an account for 12 months website usage when they advised me that they had removed the image and had no further use for it. They did not appear to understand that they had infringed my copyright. What I found astonishing was the comment that it was done "inadvertently" and "not deliberately done". So how did the image get their without anyone actually going to some trouble to remove it from my site and place it on their website? How can this act be inadvertent? I advised them that they were getting off lightly as I was only charging them for the use of the image and not punitive damages, which is what I would be entitled to in a court. As it appeared that they were not going to pay my account ($250), I suggested that they send it to their legal department. Their response was that this was being done. Years ago, I worked for an intellectual property lawyer in Toronto, Canada so am very familiar with copyright laws. Also, having worked for a large Sydney law firm for the past 20 years, also helps!

Doesn't anyone understand copyright infringement these days?