Posting watermarked photos w/out permission a copyright violation? (answer: Yes)

[boxofrocks]

I'm about to get hard core on copyright abusers, but before I do I'm trying to find out whether or not it's illegal to post watermarked photos on your site, specifically facebook.

If I disable right clicking and wastermark them with verbage that states "copyrighted image, may not be downloaded, duplicated, or posted on facebook or other social networking sites", and they still do it, is there any violation of law there?

Facebook removes them when I point the out, but If someone challenges me and claims I'm being too heavy handed, I wanted to be able to back it up. Does anyone know where I can find info specific to this?

Keep in mind, I'm not talking about removing a watermark, I'm talking about dosplaying an image that specifically says downloding is not permitted, and keeping that watermark.

Thanks!!

[Wil_Bloodworth]

Tom,

It is not illegal to do so... I do it all the time on my FB. You're CR owner so there is nothing wrong with it at all. Good question... don't know about your last question.

- Wil

[boxofrocks]

I mean for others (not the copyright owner) to download and link/post your watermarked images on their social networking sites. I called the US patent office, and they said if they're your images, you control their display, watermarked or not.

Just wondered if anyone had been required to address this specific issue.

[brad]

Just out of curiosity.. why would you not want them to show images you took with your watermark, website info, and copyright info on them? Sounds like free advertising to me....


Or, do what I do, and include facebook sized images with their packages and encourage them to post them to facebook and link back to my FB profile as well.... and they *PAY ME* to do it. Better than free advertising, they are paying me to advertise my work.

[jeffkohn]

Making a copy of your image and publishing it on their own is copyright violation, linking to images you've posted is not so clear-cut. Whether or not you watermark them has nothing to do with the legality of them being posted. It may help inform people who don't understand this, I guess.

But I don't really understand what you're trying to accomplish. If you don't want your images to be seen, don't make them available on-line. Once something is on the web, there's really nothing you can do to prevent this type of usage. I could understand getting upset if some company was using your images for advertising, or claiming them as their own. But I just can't imagine get worked about somebody posting a portrait they paid for on facebook. Sounds to me like Brad has the right idea.

[photopam]

I post a couple pictures on Facebook on my fan page and tag the clients so it shows up on their page.

What do you do when the copy that image off your fan page and re-post it with the watermark cut off? That's so not cool. I don't mind them posting as their profile image as long as it has the logo on it!

[brad]

I make it clear to them that they can post the images online as long as they leave the copyright info intact... and they are all very good about that.

I do offer them versions without the logos, but at a premium price.

[boxofrocks]

For those that asked, here's my thinking on the subject:

This is in regards to football photos. I provide photos such as the framed one below on my facebook page for the kids to link to. Like you said, it's good advertising. I post about 10 or 12 for every game. I encourage them to link to these:



The ones that are getting posted I'm concerned about are ones "stolen" from my exposuremanager.com site. They have to agree to the following T's and C's to enter the site:

Photos are provided for personal use only, and may not be reproduced, distributed, publicly displayed, or used as the basis for derivative works without the prior express written authorization from the copyright owner.

Do you agree with these terms?

They are still making a screen shot or something (right click disabled) and then posting the images on their FB pages. An example of one of those can be seen below also.

If I'm selling downloads, why should they buy them if they can steal them? I'm just trying to curtail this practice. FB removed the ones I can see, but if I'm not their "friend", I can't see them to report them. There are hundreds of them out there on FB. FB won't remove them unless I can give them the specific URL. Here is FB's response to me asking about the ones I can't see:

In order to take down infringing material, we will need to know, with certainty, where the content resides on the site. Please keep in mind that the best way to help us locate the content you are reporting is to provide us with web addresses (URLs) for that material. Please review this page for additional information:

http://www.facebook.com/copyright.php?howto_report

Thanks,

Iwan
User Operations
Facebook

Since FB strips the exif data, I doubt even a webcrawler could find them.


I hate to be heavy handed in enforcing this, but if you aren't you're setting a precedent that it's OK to do so, and the problem will get worse and not better. These photos are proofs, and it's no different from scanning printed proofs and displaying them on a website without permission.

I'm starting to sell both low and hi res downloads, and to me, the practice of ripping images is not advertising, it's theft. If I could automatically have EM send them the low res file of every print they ordered, I would, but that's not an option at this time.

Does that help clarify things a bit?

For the record, the US copyright office says it's illegal. They are posting my images without permission, and if I wanted to I could enforce it (not worth the expense obviously).

Take a look at this site for some sobering info on image piracy. It relates to stock photos, but is applicable to any photo posted/downloaded without permission.

[Outlaw]

Tom,

I suffered a long year early on when I posted online proof albums for clients. Thank goodness I was charging a session fee, because the vast majority of my clients were perfectly happy paying it and then just downloading the watermarked proofs and keeping them, never buying an image.

I then went to the opposite extreme and refused to do online proof albums at all. Lost a lot of clients, but saved myself a lot of processing and posting time. The session fee didn't cover my time investment if they never bought photos.

Now I use a hybrid system that has been delightfully profitable: My default is to have clients come in to the studio to look at their proofs and place their order. If they prefer an online proof album, for whatever reason, I ask for a retainer which they get back fully as print or file credits.

This guarantees I get my desired average, even if they just steal all the proofs. If they've paid this, I truly don't care what they do with the proofs. I make sure this number is high enough that my time is well paid for.

I agree with you that, in principle, you're in the legal right and they are not. But I also agree with others that if you put it online, it's going to be stolen - no question. I've just refined my system to make sure I get paid, no matter.

Keep in mind that a huge percentage of my clientele comes from MySpace, many of whom really want those proofs -for- their MySpace/Facebook profiles. Perfectly fine by me - I even tell them when I explain the two proofing options, that if they go with the online option, they are welcome to download and distribute the proofs any way they like (with watermark, of course).

And I've also learned that, more times than not, a client will buy notably more prints/files than they get with that online retainer. I don't practice sales "tricks" on clients, but it is true that money already paid is money forgotten.

Looking at the miscues of the music industry when it comes to these copyright / digital distribution battles, I think it's just the wrong time to be heavy handed and it's the right time to offer a digital-friendly option. And I think it's justified to be paid well for this option.

I've had a few clients balk, but they weren't the kind of clients I wanted anyway. With a system in place that ensures I get paid well, no matter what happens with a client or their proofs or their prints or their files, I've been able to multiply my business by concentrating on my art and my business instead of punishing/resenting the people who most enjoy my work.

[dryicerx]

Disabling right click does not prevent downloading the images just makes it a bit hard to do so (disable js or move mouse over and press the menu button on the keyboard, etc).

You're definitely on the right if someone else is posting your photos with the copyright and credits cropped out...





Just in a different perspective... does the money you lose by the few who repost them to FB or other sites without permission/cropped and the time your spend hunting them down (if you value time, time is money)... outweigh the new potential customers you get by other people seeing your photos?


Regarding the football photo with the huge copyright logo might be too much... (imagine walking in to a store only to be yelled at by the store owner "DON"T STEAL DON"T STEAL").

[Patti Edens]

Tom, Have you tried TinEye? I have heard good things about it from other pro photographers.

http://tineye.com/faq

[alwoodruff]

Originally Posted by Outlaw

Tom,


Now I use a hybrid system that has been delightfully profitable: My default is to have clients come in to the studio to look at their proofs and place their order. If they prefer an online proof album, for whatever reason, I ask for a retainer which they get back fully as print or file credits.

May i ask how much the retainer is you have them put up front? This is a new idea to me & I'm very curious. Also, as a price point of reference, how much is your session fee & 8x10?

[Outlaw]

Amanda,

Certainly, but keep in mind your expenses, talents, and market may be quite different than mine.

My retainer for an online album is $100, which again the client gets back fully as print or file credits. I do not charge a session fee (except with commercial interests) and my 8x10's run $20.

I actually just wrote about pricing issues for amateur photographers transitioning to paid professionals over on my blog, parttimephoto.com. I'm not sure where you're at with your photography, but you may find it an interesting read.

[BWangPhoto]

Originally Posted by dryicerx

Just in a different perspective... does the money you lose by the few who repost them to FB or other sites without permission/cropped and the time your spend hunting them down (if you value time, time is money)... outweigh the new potential customers you get by other people seeing your photos?


Regarding the football photo with the huge copyright logo might be too much... (imagine walking in to a store only to be yelled at by the store owner "DON"T STEAL DON"T STEAL").

Yes, it does outweight the costs, in my opinion. Of course, I am full-time and do nothing but photography for living, so it is a different outlook than someone not full-time.

If we as full-time professionals do not stop and educate clients to the error of their ways, it will just continue, and all photographers working to make a living will suffer. Since many do not realize that what they do is illegal, it will continue until someone educates them or stops them from doing this.

And yes, MANY stores do what you suggest..."Don't steal or we prsecute to the full extent of the law." I see it in many stores; restrooms, in the aisles etc. suggesting that you use layway etc. if you can't afford it and so on. In a digital world, what Tom has done is just the same thing. Don't steal from me, it isn't legal.

[brad]

Originally Posted by BWangPhoto

Yes, it does outweight the costs, in my opinion. Of course, I am full-time and do nothing but photography for living, so it is a different outlook than someone not full-time.

Please do not infer that people who allow their customers to use online versions are not doing this full time. That is an argument that has no resolution and will only get ugly.

If it makes a difference for your business model that they do not use them without permission.. that they do not steal them.. then yes, by all means, pursue trying to educate them.

My business model, they receive online versions to post on their facebook and other social media.. as long as they leave the logo on them. The images are small enough that they believe me when I tell them they won't make good prints... and they will buy prints from me. (Assuming, of course, they didn't buy the full res version.)

Our business models are different.. I have no problem with yours, so please do not slam mine. Agree to disagree like adults and move on.