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.

Getty/Google deal

A veritable s**tstorm has broken out at the contributors' forum at IStock, a Getty subsidiary.   Read about it in a post of photographer Sean Locke here and Getty's response  here    (They locked the Sean's thread!) and continued here  While I have little sympathy for microstockers, I think that Getty has just stepped over the boundary of avarice bigtime.  In a nutshell, they have licensed thousands of Getty/iStock/Flickr (plus other subsidiaries) images to Google to be downloaded free to Google Document users (amongst others) without restrictions.  Well, there are restrictions (if you read the small print) but in my experience, anyone using Google to find images don't bother with the copyright issues relating thereto or "This image may be subject to copyright" on every Google Images search page!  The photographers do get paid - $12.00 for the honour of supplying their work to Google to be used in perpetuity via a freebie download.  This, of course, will affect those finding their images via the Google Search by Image function illegally by infringers as they can now state that they downloaded it from Google legitimately - again for zilch.

I quit Getty in July and the contract ended in mid October so none of my images will be subject to this.  I do have a few images on Getty via AGE but they are RM images and, to date, only RF images are part of this deal.  What is of great concern to those affected is that images of model released people (including children) are part of this nefarious deal between Getty and Google.  Reading the IStock forum, there is still some naivety amongst a few contributors (many are just plain angry) that this is all just a mistake and that some over zealous sales people did this without Getty knowing anything about it.  Yeah right!  Getty would have sent their best lawyers and marketing folk to Google to stitch up this deal (and stitch up their contributors) and with Getty's usual aplomb, not actually mention it to their contributors.  It was only Sean Locke publishing a thread on IStock that anyone knew anything about it.  There is a lot of anger over at Getty/Flickr  when the link was placed to the IStock forum (by a Flickr member Lawren Lu) and the proverbial s..t hit the fan!

It will be an interesting read on Tuesday when someone, poor sod, has to front up to all of these forums with an explanation on why Getty is yet again screwing their contributors.

16 January 2012:  Still no official response from Getty management.  Just employees attempting to put out fires but instead just fanning the flames!  There has been some talk of a class action but I think that it will be like herding cats trying to get photographers organised enough!

19 January 2012: Just received a message from Yahoo.  I have just had the great honour of being banned from the Getty Contributors Forum probably for my views on this fiasco.  They were instructed to ban me by Getty Images.  No reason was given!  Even though I quit Getty last July, I have been posting on the forum without any repercussions from Yahoo until now.  Speaks volumes - Getty does not like any form of dissent. Technically, I am still a Getty contributor - via AGE fotostock but that doesn't seem to count!

20 January 2012.  Just received yet another missive from Yahoo.  Banned from Getty Images Artists Pick - oh, noooo!

For all those Flickr togs reading this, don't wait until 2 February (as some have indicated) to cancel contract.  That leaves even more time for Google to gobble up more of your work as apparently the total is rising by the minute.  It should also be noted that not once did I suggest to anyone on these forums to quit Getty as this decision is purely theirs. So I guess Getty just did a hissy fit, stomped its little feet in a tanty (Aussie for tantrum) and lashed out to Yahoo.  I am certainly not the only photographer on the forum who is no longer a Getty/Flickr contributor or has never signed up for Getty.  Have they also been banned or am I just being singled out?  This is not an ego thing here. Just an observation and a, somewhat rhetorical, question!

Getty has been given enough time (now over a week) to come up with an explanation which will satisfy their very angry photographers who are seeing their work being treated so shoddily.  But that is where the problem lies with Getty.  I cannot see anything that will placate Getty photographers other than them scrapping entirely the "deal" with Google, but of course as that is set in concrete and has been in effect since towards the end of 2012.  Enough time for hundreds of thousands of Getty images to be distributed worldwide for use by websites, commercial sites and every Tom, Dick and Harry.  Photos of their children, their parents and friends - all being distributed without any reference to the photographer and certainly no respect for the content.  Stable doors and horses springs to mind. 

RedBubble's refusal to address issue of watermarking

I have been a member of the print site, RedBubble for several years.  Over the past year or so, I have constantly found my work illegally on websites and blogs where the metadata of my infringed work indicates that the infringer lifted the image from RedBubble.  While RB does watermark the large thumbnail on the site, it refuses to place watermarks on smaller thumbnails which are, of course, able to be used for web use.  The lack of watermark is an open invitation to infringers who appear to think that without a watermark, images are not protected by copyright laws.  Wrong, of course but its the constant refrain from infringers.  One of the infringers actually admitted to my US attorney that the image was obtained from RB without the watermark.  I brought this up last year with RB and was fobbed off.  So, again, within the past week, I tried again and what followed was something out of the Mad Hatter's Tea Party.  I wrote asking why they were not watermarking thumbnail images explaining that they were being nicked constantly.  I got the usual, probably computer generated response "thanks for writing...really sorry about the copyright infringements...protection is of upmost importance...unfortunately its near impossible to prevent ..." and then a load of waffle.  Nothing to justify keeping unwatermarked images, my images, on their site.  It would appear that they only believe that folk download images to print out at home so they would not download low res as it would not look good on paper.  Little do they know that images are downloaded for website and blog use.   And then they closed the thread.   Warming to the subject, I sent them the following which appeared on 30 November:

"You never addressed the issue of watermarking ALL sizes (if the photographer requests this).  I have brought this up before and the matter was "closed" when it was never addressed or answered satisfactorily.  I am battling constant infringements of my work where the image, according to the metadata on the infringer's site, states that the image came from RedBubble.  What is so difficult about watermarking ALL image sizes?  Even small images can be used on websites unlicensed and without permission.  Amongst the photographer community (who are constantly dealing with infringements), RedBubble is mentioned as one of the worst offenders for allowing unwatermarked out in cyberspace."

The above appeared on the now open thread in RB.  Today, December 3,  I received the following:

"Thanks again for writing to us with your suggestion - its great to see such passion and dedication for the enhancement of the Redbubble.com experience!  Have a great day:)"

And then they closed the thread.  Again.

It was straight out of Alice in Wonderland.  I then sent them a response via their email address and it bounced as Spam.  How's that for adding insult to injury.  I am seriously thinking of removing all of my work from RB and I am not the only one thinking this way.  Hundreds of my images are on Pinterest and 95% of them are taken from RedBubble.

Update:  Because of their complete inaction, I cancelled my account with RedBubble in July 2013.  Nuff said.

Passing off ...or an accident?

There is a stoush over at RedBubble when Sydney photographer, Peter Hill found one of his (alleged) images  for sale by another photographer.  Peter confronted this passing off and the journal of the photographer has gone from a scant apology to indignant statements that the image (of a rose) was actually his and it was a rose which was given to his wife by a neighbour.  All this is arrant nonsense.  The alleged person who is passing this image off as his noted that he did not have any details of the camera when he checked the Picasa  program when Peter confronted him.  But on the original RedBubble journal of his which showed this image of the rose, he stated the following camera details:  "Panasonic Lumix GH2 at 32 mm, 14/140 lens, 1/30 f/8, ISO 160...etc etc" so where did these details suddenly come from.  The image was taken by Peter Hill on a Canon 5D3 and he also has similar images of the rose taken on the same day.  He keeps deleting my posts questioning how he came by these details.  Details of the stoush can be found here  Too late, he has deleted his journal page.   You can find Peter Hill's RB journal regarding this image here

Sydney photographer "appropriated images from Getty"

Sydney based photographer, Ben Ali Ong eventually admitted that he had appropriated images:
http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/art-and-design/art-world-in-a-flap-as-it-takes-stock-of-contentious-images-20120831-255nj.html

According to the Herald's arts journalist, Adam Fulton " Ong, 30, told the Herald he took those photos himself and that claims he did not were false and "heartbreaking". But then he suggested he had "recreated" the pictures. ''I cut out things that I like, and if I like it I will recreate it … and change it to my style.''  A day later, however, the gallery confirmed the contentious images were sourced from Getty Images and that the artist had ''appropriated'' them. He did this occasionally."

Looking at the two images published in the article, little to me has been "recreated" at all. The original work has been converted to mono then added a background texture with a grainy effect.  The questions are, firstly, why would he allegedly do this in the first place, risking his reputation and secondly  why on earth would he have sourced it from Getty? - beats me!   Of course, being a photographer I wondered if anything of mine had been "appropriated" (well, you would, wouldn't you!!) but his website appears to be down.  Hmmmm....  If this is considered as passing off, it has got to be one of the biggest sins a photographer could ever do to a fellow photographer and amazingly, it appears to be condoned by some folk in this article as "art" and therefore quite acceptable.

I have tracked one of the images to a wildlife photographer who lives in Virginia, US and I have emailed him asking him if he is aware of the controversy raging in the art world 12,000 km away.  Will keep you posted.

Comments would be welcome!

Another Getty/Beijing portal rip off

Sigh.  Opened July statements to find that Getty's Beijing portal had "topped up" the license in May of my rights managed image on cell/mobile phone casings by the gigantic amount of $2.38.  The original license was $1.19 (of which I will receive 36 cents) and now totals $3.57 for use in China only.  Yeah, right.  I wonder when I will see these phones on sale in Australia (outside the territory).  The fact that Getty admitted that they have no control over third party pricing does not bode well for photographers whose work gets snapped up by this Beijing company and licensed for next to nothing.  This is probably worse than microstock pricing.    Of course, this will be renewed next year, again for next to nothing, even though my contract had expired but Getty can renew the license one more time within a year of the contract cancellation.  

Dropping Getty

After two years or more as a Getty contributor (via Flickr), I have cancelled my contract with Getty Images.  While they licensed several of my images early on for reasonable fees, there seemed to be a definite downward trend in fees for my work.  Of course, I am not alone as lowball pricing is endemic in the stock image industry.  I guess the last straw was when Getty licensed one of my rights managed images via their Beijing portal for use on mobile phone covers for the princely sum of $1.19, of which I received 36 cents.  This was a renewal of a license fee for usage last year ($4.19) and which I questioned Getty about before the renewal.  Of course, I received no response.   My most recent sale via Getty was also a renewal but at 50% of the original license fee.  At this rate, photographers will soon be paying buyers to license their work!  Due to their exclusivity, it was just not economic for me to license work for 36 cents.  What the most astounding comment from Getty when they eventually (after a month or so of nagging) commented on the license by the Beijing portal was that they had no control of third party pricing.  Astonishing to say the least.  If that is true, then someone in Getty's legal department stuffed up big time if this was written into the three year contract with the Chinese company.

I was never entirely happy having Getty license my work.  Their appalling commission (they keep 70-80% of fees, depending on RM or RF), the exclusivity which means that I cannot license my work which appears on Getty anywhere else (even directly to clients) and the inability to choose the license (RM or RF).  All that said, my RPI (revenue per image) was very good with Getty but it was probably their attitude of "lump it or like it" bothered me.  Getty is now uploading photographers images to Fine Art America print site, competing directly with photographers who have had their images on FAA for years.  They are undercutting them to such an extent that its not worthwhile to keep images on this site.  Thankfully, none of my images are being uploaded by Getty and they won't now because Getty removed my images from their own site within days of me cancelling my contract.  What a lot of Getty photographers don't realise,especially those on Flickr, is that RF images can be downloaded by clients for a low amount and then the images can be on-sold as prints by the client without reference or any further payment to the photographer.  When this was brought up on the Getty/Flickr forum, it was never answered or acknowledged by Getty.

I have 19th October 2012 circled on my calendar as the "free of Getty" day!

Blogger's regret

An "mea culpa" post from a writer/blogger on not using images "found on Google" Roni Loren's blog

An interesting post from "the other side"!

Canon 5DIII

I replaced my Canon 5DII with the new beaut 5DIII and am still trying to get my head around the auto focussing aspects.  I did manage to take a nice snap of Mudda Mudda, my favourite aboriginal busker (street performer) with my Canon 135 f/2 L and heavily cropped it (which is what one can do with 23 MP cameras.

List of excuses by infringers

Carolyn Wright, who represents me in the US, has a very interesting post on her blog Excuses, Excuses on the many excuses by those who infringe the copyright of photographers and how they stand up upon close and legal examination.  I would recommend a read by photographers who read my blog and infringers who, out of curiosity, read my blog!  And here is Part 2 of Excuses, Excuses and Part 3 of Excuses, Excuses

List of IP attorneys I recommend

United States: Carolyn Wright PhotoAttorney
United States: Leslie Burns BurnsTheAttorney
Australia: Sydney lawyer Peter Knight of Banki Haddock Fiora
UK: Mark Corran of Briffa
Canada: Dan Pollack Dan Pollock Law

For the US attorneys to pursue an action, you will need your images registered with the US Copyright Office.  There are some exceptions so I suggest you contact them first.  The US attorneys will act on a contingency basis.  Again, there are exceptions.

Please feel free to contact me with recommended IP lawyers to add to this list. Please give contact name, name of firm and country.

Limestone Networks ignoring DMCA notices

Over the past month, I have been attempting to have  Limestone Networks  remove a site downloading copyright images for "free".  I sent them DMCA notices on 29 April 2012, 3 May 2012 and 9 May 2012, all of which have been ignored.  I have left them at least two messages on their webpage and still no response.  Not only is the infringing site downloading my images "for free", they are downloading hundreds of photographers images without license.  A similar site was taken down within 24 hours by GoDaddy for which we are very grateful and only wish that Limestone Networks will take heed of legal DMCA notices.

Update 19 May7 2012:  Well, the infringing site has been taken down.   Excellent.  I don't know who took it down as I contacted Xo.com yesterday which is Limestone Networks upstream provider so it could have been either one.

One of the comments on this post (which I did not publish) was from a site which stated that they loved free images and was downloading them from their site.  Well, I checked out the site and the images were absolute crap.  So nothing to lose any sleep over there!

New blog by David Hoffman in EPUK

An interesting read from photographer, David Hoffman, who wrote (amongst other interesting things) in EPUK on the possibility of a small claims court in the UK dedicated to settling infringement actions.  David has concerns over the caseload of the court at 150 cases per year.  I guess the UK Government is still unaware of the amount of infringements going on, mainly amongst newspaper groups and massive infringements on websites and blogs.  Still, it's better than nothing.  Here is the link to the the UK Government's Intellectual Property Office website IPO detailing the anticipated small claims court.

Another site giving away "free" images for download

I recent found yet another website allowing downloads of "free" images which, of course, are not free.  The site is based in Indonesia so I guess I have buckleys trying to get them to remove my many, many images which are being given away.  I have removed link to this site because of the stupid comment I received which I have deleted!   I have tried to contact the site via their email address which of course is false (it bounced twice) and I have left a message on their Facebook site and will continue to do so until they remove ALL of my images.  I have sent a DMCA notice to their server in the US (Limestone Networks) but even a reminder email has not elicited a response.  The site is still online and still giving away photographers' copyrighted work.  I will continue to send reminders to Limestone until they tire of me!

As a last resort, I will find an IP lawyer in Jakarta to pursue an action for copyright infringement but I had hoped that Limestone would co-operate as GoDaddy did awhile back when they took down completely another infringing site offering similar free downloads.

Update: 19 May 2012:  Site has now been taken down.  See my post re Limestone Networks.

Egg on face over at SmugMug

It would appear that the photosharing site,  SmugMug, had a major stuff up over a blog piece on one of their contributors.  The apology can be found HERE   The interesting thing is that the owner of SmugMug never actually explained why they posted the piece about the photographer in the first place without, apparently, doing any due diligence!  Nor was it explained exactly what they had done as, of course, the offending blog piece has been deleted and it did not show up in the Wayback Machine - darn!