Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 5, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3466 times:
The thing that worries me most about this is that there is an option to "order a print" in this gallery. As a non-member, I can't access full details, but I would be concerned if this person is distributing crap copies of my pics ... with my name still on the bottom!
Anyway, I too have sent a complaint. Thanks for the alert.
TomH From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 2 Reply 7, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3463 times:
This offending website appears to be a commercial operation. They sells wallpapers and prints. They can claim to have removed your image when in fact they have already sold it. It is time to get serious about protecting your property. To repeat part of my statement of September 9:
This will happen again. What are we doing now to protect ourselves from similar theft in the future? Only if you have swift legal assistance can you really accomplish what you need-prevention of theft.
I suggest the administrators try to line up someone who has the right expertise to truly protect the work on this website.
There must be some internet-savvy lawyers out there who can come to our aid. I suggest that through a lawyer, those of you who had their images stolen could be monetarily compensated for the theft of your property-whether they were taken off the site or not. After all, they seem to have a business of supplying images for wallpapers and postcards, so they have something to lose.
The people running airliners.net should provide some form of protection for the contributors. Lets not look the other way and shrug our shoulders. The folks running airliners.net need to show some action toward a permanent solution to this problem.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 9, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3458 times:
While I agree that violation of copyright is unacceptable, I don't think we should expect a.net to sort this out for us. A.net clearly sets out terms and conditions of use, which is all we need should we choose to contest a misuse. The problem with a.net dealing with the problem is that there are a range of contributors with differing concerns and interests - some may be able to show financial loss due to an infringement, others won't (this makes a HUGE difference in pursuing any claim). Some may take the view that their work is being made more widely available and not wish to take any action.
A.net does not own our photos, and should not be expected to do more than it already does to protect them. Indeed, I don't think a.net should take any action on my behalf without first consulting me.
Speaking from experience of being on the receiving end of complaints, multiple complaints ALWAYS gets quicker results than a single complaint no matter who its from, so complaints from many individual photographers will probably be more effective than one from Johan.
Finally, while there is a clear copyright violation, no one is likely to receive financial compensation unless a financial loss can be documentented and demonstrated. That being the case, I doubt the legal profession would be interested in taking up this fight unless WE paid them a large wad of cash up front.
TomH From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3464 times:
I believe a proactive approach is required. Here is a letter I just sent to these people at the offending website. You may feel that it won't change things a bit, but I disagree. I think that if they know we are willing and able to cause them legal and financial problems, they will go about their business more wisely. Don't just sit there-do something!
I operate a small business registered in the State of Vermont known as Tom Hildreth Photography. I have been an aviation writer/photographer for 30 years, and have contributed my work to many magazines, periodicals, books and websites. My work in photography is of value to me in that it contributes to my financial welfare.
My attention has been called to your website by others who feel their photographic work has been repeatedly stolen by you. I have seen a statement on your website in which you require a photographer to prove his work is on your website. This runs contrary to copyright law, which clearly makes it the responsibility of the publisher to determine that they have been granted rights to a specific intellectual work, including photographs.
Should any of my work appear on your website in an unauthorized manner, you will be charged a user's fee of US $100.00/photo, and $35.00/hr. research time. To this, you can add any legal fees that I accrue in defense of my property.
I am specifically prohibiting Webshots, part of the Excite family, from using my photos without written permission. You have been warned.
AKE0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2534 posts, RR: 49 Reply 11, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3451 times:
Fyi....as I said in the begining we had this problem about 3 months ago and webshots is not really responsible for the pictures displayed on their website, rather the particular user is who stole our pictures from airliners.net.
Last time, Johan got in touch with them and requested that all airliners.net pictures are to be removed immediately and they did.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 14, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3442 times:
Tom is definitely taking the right approach - you must look after your own property and not expect A.net do it for you.
In my note to Webshots I requested the name & address of the account holder, intending to send an invoice. Following Tom's lead, if they do not reveal the true identity, I will send the invoice to webshots.
TomH From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 2 Reply 15, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3440 times:
When airliners.net contributors inform each other of theft of images such as that which is once again taking place, it is because there is a brotherhood here. It comes as a heads up, a friend telling you that your property rights have been violated. Second, I’m sure we all would really, really like to see this theft end once and for all. None among this brotherhood want to enter into correspondence with the offending website every few months to reinforce our concerns over our property. There is indeed more that we can do.
Earlier posts left me with the impression Webshots was a California-based organization operating from a known location. If this is true, a deluge of complaint letters from around the world sent to the office of the California Attorney General would be a worthwhile effort in the near term. The most meaningful letters would be from the people who have had their work stolen, so the burden of this effort would be theirs. (Hey, it's just another letter). Note that in the recent cases, the photographer’s name and airliners.net can be seen on the black bottom border, so this helps prove that you own the rights to the image. You should mention that you own the original negative/slide/photo, and provide other specifics such as dates and witnesses.
Airliners.net administrators need to avoid being put in a position where this website becomes a distributor of images for other websites. I doubt if any present contributors feel comfortable with that possibility. This is why airliners.net needs to be part of the solution to the problem. I see this as a necessity before we can move on to the long-term step, which is to obtain a lawyer. I am not talking about anyone getting money as damage payment due to use of an image. I’m talking about cease and desist orders from a court, or something like that, which would end the practice permanently.
I’m not sure of the best way to do this, but I believe that if Webshots is made aware that there is a determined group of photographers willing to fight for protection of their property they will cease these copyright infringement activities. The person who uploaded the image to Webshots is not the issue that affects us the most. That Webshots publishes the works of others without first obtaining permission is the issue. The international copyright laws are in our favor. There needs to be enough of us willing to go the next step and seek action, for only then will we be able to protect our property in a meaningful way. It is up to us to decide what the next step will be.
AKE0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2534 posts, RR: 49 Reply 17, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3432 times:
For all here again the answer Johan did get the last time from Webshots.com
Dear Mr. Lundgren,
Thank you for your message. As you may know, the images you identified as belonging to Airliners.net, like all images in the Webshots Community, were uploaded by users, not by employees of Webshots or Excite@Home.
We have deleted the images from the Webshots Community and, because of multiple complaints of copyright infringement, have terminated the user's account. Although we have deleted the images from the Community, it is possible that some of the images have been cached, and it may take a few days for the cache to clear. However, within 24 hours, these photos should no longer appear in the users' albums or topic pages, and users should not be able to download them.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any other questions or concerns regarding the Webshots Community and thank you for calling these users' postings to our attention.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 21, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3394 times:
Webshots will, I'm sure, stick to their caveat "not our responsibility" in the first instance. They may or may not be able to get away with this, but the legal mood does seem to be swinging against the service providers these days who are beginning to be seen as facilitators of various forms of misuse (such as spam, copyright theft).
I have requested the true identity of the person responsible. If not provided, as I suspect will be the case, then I think we have a much stronger case against Webshots as "facilitators" of the theft.
Meanwhile, I suggest those affected take a download of the complete webshots page. The evidence will probably be removed shortly, and you will need the download to progress any action.
TomH From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 2 Reply 23, posted (13 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3398 times:
Webshots is simply employing a dodge here. These activities are their responsibility. They have an uploading process that creates copyright violations on their website. It would be a weak legal position for them to shrug their shoulders in court and say they cannot exercise control over this process. Keep copies of any Emails you recieve from them, as their response can be used to our advantage down the road. Dazed767, by all means order your prints from them-this would be strong evidence of profit motive on their part.
Can we keep Webshots on the hotseat by invoicing them for the images uploaded by Perro? It would be better if we could put Webshots in the position of being the bill collector, and force them to turn around and invoice Perro. This would be a potential drain on their resources.