Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Copyright Violation / Illegal Use Of Pictures  
User currently offlineAke0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2535 posts, RR: 45
Posted (14 years 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4545 times:

Hello all,

we went through this a couple of months ago and here we go again.
I don't know if you guys gave your permisson, I was certainly not asked.

Here the link:

http://community.webshots.com/album/5103824qZtCzifbyQ

http://community.webshots.com/album/5211120RpCJoNznRG

Photos by Craig Murray, Mark Garfinkel, Frank Schaefer ( Wunala Dreaming) Samuel Lo, AirNikon, Lawrence Feir and of few others can be seen there.

Just wanted to let you guys know.

Regards
Vasco Garcia

57 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineHenryjr From Canada, joined May 2000, 98 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (14 years 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4171 times:

Who does that?
There is so much it's like going through the Airliners.net gallery!

Henry Jr


User currently offlineAirNikon From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 290 posts, RR: 35
Reply 2, posted (14 years 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4162 times:

Here are two more, maintained by the same person:

http://community.webshots.com/album/5509445TJwTbDlrDp


http://community.webshots.com/album/5639276HBKOOeLLzs



Don't get married, don't have kids, and you will have more money than you know what to do with...
User currently offlineDazed767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5498 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (14 years 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4139 times:

Well, 2 of mine showed up this time (better than 10 like last). I just wrote them an email. Johan, I hope you email then to have them remove those pages.

User currently offline777boy From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 287 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (14 years 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4128 times:

Yep, two of mine also.

I'm not that upset since it is not for profit, and probably only five people look at the site a year, but it is irritating that people do this without asking.

Matt


User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 765 posts, RR: 16
Reply 5, posted (14 years 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4105 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.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineTappan From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1538 posts, RR: 41
Reply 6, posted (14 years 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4102 times:

Thanks Vasco,
and Matt it is not a " not for profit" when thry have a button there that says "order a print"
Take care,
Mark G


User currently offlineTomH From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (14 years 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4102 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.
TomH


User currently offlineDazed767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5498 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (14 years 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4100 times:

I should try to buy one of mine that are on there, and see what I get. Do you think if he did sell me that picture, could I file suit against him?

User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 765 posts, RR: 16
Reply 9, posted (14 years 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4097 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.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineTomH From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (14 years 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4103 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!

Dear Sirs:
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.

Tom Hildreth, Prop.
Tom Hildreth Photography


User currently offlineAKE0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2535 posts, RR: 45
Reply 11, posted (14 years 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4090 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.

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/aviation_photography/read.main/2761/


Regards
Vasco Garcia



User currently offline777boy From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 287 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (14 years 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4088 times:

Sorry, didn't notice that order prints option. I though that it was just one of those online photo album things.

I'll follow everybody's lead.

PS: That letter sounds good!

Matt


User currently offlineClassic707 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 548 posts, RR: 13
Reply 13, posted (14 years 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4086 times:

TomH,, the letter sounds great, thanks!

User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 765 posts, RR: 16
Reply 14, posted (14 years 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4081 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.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineTomH From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (14 years 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4079 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.

TomH


User currently offlineMirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3125 posts, RR: 14
Reply 16, posted (14 years 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4069 times:

Did you notice the small letters in the bottom saying: "perrro contributed and has sole responsibility for the content on this page."

Could Webshots save themselfs from trouble with this statment?


User currently offlineAKE0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2535 posts, RR: 45
Reply 17, posted (14 years 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4071 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.





User currently offline777boy From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 287 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (14 years 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4061 times:

I sent a complaint also. Hopefully, this guy will learn a lesson!

User currently offlineUSAir_757 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 996 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (14 years 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 4053 times:

Yes you need yo get the user's profile, and contact HIM to propose fees and/or suits - not webshots. Only contct them to have the images removed.


Cheers,
C. Wassell



-Cullen Wassell @ MLI | Pentax K5 + DA18-55WR + Sigma 70-300 DL Macro Super
User currently offlineDazed767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5498 posts, RR: 51
Reply 20, posted (14 years 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4044 times:

What aggravates me the most is that you can buy my photos from their site. That is WRONG!

User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 765 posts, RR: 16
Reply 21, posted (14 years 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4033 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.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineSukhoi From Sweden, joined May 2006, 373 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (14 years 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4038 times:

Anybody notice that if you send an E-card then the preview picture then has the copyright to Perro ?

As Colin has said im sure Webshots will say its not their fault again as they did in the first instance.

regards

Paul


User currently offlineTomH From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (14 years 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4037 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.

Lets work it, guys. Keep the ideas coming!
TomH





User currently offlineGranite From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5576 posts, RR: 63
Reply 24, posted (14 years 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4038 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi all

It's absolutley amazing (if that's the right word) as to how many shots have been 'pinched'

Other than the pages mentioned, if you search for 'aircraft' there are tons of other people using images.

If the shot(s) were credited to the right people, it is not so bad, but most are cropped with all wording now gone.

Some of mine have been cropped quite a bit.

So, what do we do?

Regards
Gary Watt
Aberdeen, Scotland


25 Administrator : Sorry I haven't been around until now, I've been traveling. Here's the reply I got from their legal department when I told them this can not continue
26 Ckw : As I understand it, the letter quoted by Johan is factually correct. However, it is seldom the case that only one law applies. I beleive this can be a
27 Post contains images 777boy : Thanks Johan.
28 Post contains links USAir_757 : Prehaps they can put this in their rules: "NO images from http://www.airliners.net - PERIOD!" But even then, people can crop, and they would never kno
29 Nicolaki : Usair_757: Well actually your idea is not bad, but I think that it won't stop those who want to illegally use your pic, they could just reproduce the
30 AKE0404AR : Hello again, pls find an extract of useage of photos on airliners.net ------------------------------------------------------ The digital photos on thi
31 Nicolaki : Does this means that airliners.net is already watermarking the uploaded photos? Nicolas - Montreal
32 Post contains links Sukhoi : If you search under "airplanes" then this is what you get: In this topic: 23,782 photos available in 1,328 albums in Airplanes. Having had a very brie
33 Post contains links Administrator : Here's a reply I just got from Webshots: Dear Johan, Thank you for brining these postings to our attention. I will remove the images immediately. Webs
34 USAir_757 : Johan: Did you view my example photo? The copyright message in it is very small, not covering any important part of the photo, but aligned with import
35 Dazed767 : They removed my photos, and I guess everyone elses. Thanks to Johan for sending them an email. I'm going to keep an eye on that site for more photos f
36 AKE0404AR : Justin, GOOD NEWS , I am not too sure about that, just clicked the link and the pictures are still there. Regards Vasco
37 TomH : Thank you for your efforts, Johan. I'm sure you are frustrated by this also, and I expect you would like to see a permanent solution. This is as much
38 TomH : Here are two addresses to which you should send letters of complaint concerning theft of your images or your concern that such theft may have occurred
39 Post contains links 777boy : So Johan, does this mean that I shouldn't post pictures I have taken myself with the airliners.net tag at the bottom on my website? For example, I use
40 AirNikon : Mine are still online as well...
41 Post contains links AirNikon : Here are two more. I'm not too sure how many have been cropped or not, with or without credits. I just recognized a few of mine (uncropped): http://co
42 Pascuzzi : Hello all, Again, this seems to be a heated issue, as Johan has thankfully pointed out to me. As far as I've noticed, this site www.webshots.com has p
43 Post contains links Ake0404AR : ********** E-MAIL alert ******************* Johan, just a quick note in reagards to all these recent copyright violations. A lot of the photographers
44 TomH : Ed Pascuzzi, thank you for taking the initiative by placing the phone call to Webshots. In the past, photographers have been appeased by removal of th
45 Granite : Hi all I was having a look through some of them and there are a few pages now offline. These were online as of yesterday so it looks as if something i
46 Ckw : Regarding Gary's observation on the removal of pages - this does seem to be the case, hence it is essential that you take a copy of the Webshots page
47 TomH : Colin, Under US Copyright law, the originator of a work has the sole right to distribution. This means that Webshots is violating US law. The originat
48 AirNikon : Gary: I still don't see where anything is being done. As of 1745Z/08NOV the pages and individual photos are still online.
49 TomH : Johan, In your 11/07 post you asked if the statements by Webshots legal intern were true in regards to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Th
50 Post contains images Seriouslyfunny : well, the reality is, this is never gonna stop as long as there are people out there that dont understand, or are ignorant to copyright regulations. m
51 Post contains images 777boy : THEY ARE GONE!!!
52 Post contains images Lauda 777 : Hi C. Wassell... I tried to remove your copyright mark.. I took me about 10 seconds in photoshop... We need something better... Best Regards Jonas
53 Post contains images Pascuzzi : Hi folks, Thanks for chipping in on this topic, and I think if we had more contributors to airliners.net involved in this, we'd nail those webshots.co
54 USAir_757 : RE: Pacuzzi: Well, yeah, encrypting images is one option, that will also penalize the good users who only save a photo to their computer to use it as
55 Post contains images Dazed767 : I'd rather have it encrypted than worry about not being able to use it on the desktop background.
56 777boy : If they want to use it as a desktop, they could ask the photographer for the original. Encrypting sounds like a good idea as long as the latest browse
57 Post contains images Pascuzzi : Hello all again, While I have not been checking the forum for about 10 days, I have noticed that webshots.com seems to have deleted all the pages we h
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Possible Illegal Use Of Photos? posted Thu Sep 1 2005 15:25:21 by SQNo1
Illegal Use Of Airliners.net Photos? posted Wed Jun 8 2005 14:31:35 by Bearcuban12
Illegal Use Of Photo? posted Wed Mar 23 2005 20:49:56 by Schreiner
Another Illegal Use Of Photos From A.net posted Fri Mar 4 2005 20:57:13 by Digital-cavu
Illegal Use Of Photos posted Sat Aug 11 2001 16:42:30 by Kasing
Another Copyright Violation: This Time My Photo posted Sat Sep 16 2006 16:30:43 by Tappan
Unauthorised Use Of Images posted Fri Sep 8 2006 19:46:22 by Dendrobatid
Use Of Autofill When Uploading Compulsory Or Not? posted Mon Sep 4 2006 00:35:48 by Irish251
Unauthorized Commercial Use Of Our Photos. posted Thu Jul 20 2006 19:54:33 by Bluewave 707
Request For Use Of My Bahrain Amiri Photos posted Sat Jun 24 2006 11:25:27 by SmithAir747