when someone takes your photo what steps do you take?

[mattchow]

my photo appeared in one of the reader's rides segments on audiworld. I took the above photo at a get together a while back and posted them on my personal website as well as some assorted local websites. the owner of the car loved that shot and im assuming kept it for personal use.

i am assuming that the person who owns the a3 in the photo submitted it to the site admin of audiworld.com for use in their story. when i saw my photo in 3 separate places, i immediately contacted the admin of the site and this is the conversation we had.

Originally Posted by mattchow

Jason, I don’t know if you just haven’t had time to read my previous email, I want you to either credit me for the photo with direct link to my website [www.speedsportlife.com] or take it down.

Originally Posted by audiworld admin

Matt, I have been busy this weekend – no harm intended. I’ll fix it now. It is a great photo.

so where i sit now..

i find that my watermarked photo has been re-watermarked by jason teller and posted not only in his headlining story, but also in the audiworld gallery and his accompanying "topic discussion" post.

he has already said that he would fix it. as far as i can tell i have been credited in the gallery but not his post in the forums or his headlining story. what action would you take from here? I think I am being completely fair in asking for a link back to my website as well as proper credit.

how would you react as a photographer?

[brad]

I'd be tempted to send him a bill.

But seriously.. how much time has passed? Give it a few days, send a gentle reminder that he said he would do it.. send your next email in the "I don't mean to bother you or sound like I'm whining" kind of context.

You can still kind of read your logo... but it may just be because I know what it says.

[Wes]

Hmmmmm..... you said that he re-watermarked your image? That would tick me off. Not sure what recourse you actually have, though.

[brad]

Didn't re-watermark it as much as they plastered their standard banner over the bottom of the image.. probably something that happens to every photograph automatically and not something they did in an effort to explicitly cover up the existing logo.

[darktiger]

I was going to say that, he just put his banner over the watermark...

[kb5kjn]

I would start a DMCA complaint.

[mattchow]

Originally Posted by brad

Didn't re-watermark it as much as they plastered their standard banner over the bottom of the image.. probably something that happens to every photograph automatically and not something they did in an effort to explicitly cover up the existing logo.

i already came to the conclusion that they have their standard automation to some degree, it's just the lack of care since these photos are given to them and are unique to each story which means it's up to the author of the story to check what his sources and what he is given to some extent. if i just applied a standard banner to all of your images and posted them on a website you would be fine with it?

[Abel]

i would definitely have them remove the photos and/or ask they they be replaced with new versions of the photos (given by you) that have your website shown unobstructed when their banner is applied.

just my opinion...

[sjoe88]

It looks like he has added " Photo by Matt Chow " to the headline story, gallery and discussion post.

Thats a great picture Matt.

[Kathi]

If they have given you the photo credit that you asked for, then the problem is solved. However, if they do not give credit or take down the image, you can take them to court and win, hands down. And, by law, you would receive $50,000 per infringement - if they posted it in 3 places, 3 infringements, $150,000. A friend of mine had given some images to a company to use for their website with the understanding that she received photo credit. Not only did he not give her credit, but he also gave 5 of the images to a magazine for print without her photo credit. She took him to court and received $250,000. Courts don't play around with copyright infringement.

[Cope]

Is a photo copyrighted just because you put © behind it, or do you actually have to register it? I am not raining on this parade, I was just curious.

[Kathi]

Originally Posted by Cope

Is a photo copyrighted just because you put © behind it, or do you actually have to register it? I am not raining on this parade, I was just curious.

The moment you click your shutter to create an image, you own the copyright for that image. There is a time frame in which you can register it if you are going to but I don't remember offhand what it is. There are several threads on TPF about it though. Registering it just gives you an extra upper-hand in case you ever have to take someone to court for infringement.

[bigjon0107]

Originally Posted by Kathi

If they have given you the photo credit that you asked for, then the problem is solved. However, if they do not give credit or take down the image, you can take them to court and win, hands down. And, by law, you would receive $50,000 per infringement - if they posted it in 3 places, 3 infringements, $150,000. A friend of mine had given some images to a company to use for their website with the understanding that she received photo credit. Not only did he not give her credit, but he also gave 5 of the images to a magazine for print without her photo credit. She took him to court and received $250,000. Courts don't play around with copyright infringement.

Wouldn't this only be true if the images were registered? From my understanding (which could very well be wrong ), if you dont have the images registered you could only sue for the amount of lost income on the images. But if they are registered you could sue for MUCH more then that...hence the 50K per image. But I am no lawyer, so if anyone knows something i don't, please let me know

-Jon

[Kathi]

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf

[dbphotos]

My 1st thought was whether he is doing this as a commerical venture or as a hobbiest in determining what approach to take. Either way I'd protect my copyright. If he is doing it as a hobby, then a link back or credit would be fine. If he is doing it as a commercial venture then I'd demand payment and credit or payment and removal. Ask him how he'd respond if someone stole his site content and posted it somewhere else.

You own the copyright as soon as you take the photo. With the exif and iptc info embedded into the image it helps, but no guarantees since it can be removed.