Photo removal
Started by
picblanc
, May 17 2010 09:13
54 replies to this topic
#51
Coupe Kawasaki
-
- 1,501 posts
- Joined: May 09
Member
Posted 22 May 2010 - 19:23
I think you're safe from it anyway Phil
Advertisement
#52
fil2.8
-
- 19,496 posts
- Joined: October 07
Member
Posted 22 May 2010 - 20:16
I think you're safe from it anyway Phil
Who are you to judge , Daisy
??
#53
exclubracer
-
- 1,720 posts
- Joined: October 07
Member
Posted 23 May 2010 - 00:34
And there you have it. QED.I think they just rely on the fact they hope the photographer wont find out?
#54
TT Mike
-
- 16 posts
- Joined: March 09
New Member
Posted 23 May 2010 - 18:27
There was some sort of government edict passed a while back (been trying to find it on the web without success) that basically stated unless the owner of an image could be easily identified, any image in the public domain was fair game. So, it's not even enough to watermark your images! I've now taken to putting my website address on anything I post on a forum now.
As far as upscaling images goes, I once supplied a disc of 1024 pixel images to a local trials club in the hope that it would go on their website and I might flog a few. Turned out that they got upscaled and generated some perfectly acceptable A4 prints that were distributed free of charge! I wasn't happy...
It's a regular thing now on the likes of iomtt.com that people will post 800 or 1024 pixel wide images which are not only easy to rip off but also takes business away from those trying to make a living from photography. No wonder various publications trawl the forums looking for freebies.
If anyone finds one of their images on a website where permission hasn't been asked just hit them with a big bill. If you check out NUJ rates, the use of an 800x600 pixel image runs to several hundred pounds per year!
As far as upscaling images goes, I once supplied a disc of 1024 pixel images to a local trials club in the hope that it would go on their website and I might flog a few. Turned out that they got upscaled and generated some perfectly acceptable A4 prints that were distributed free of charge! I wasn't happy...
It's a regular thing now on the likes of iomtt.com that people will post 800 or 1024 pixel wide images which are not only easy to rip off but also takes business away from those trying to make a living from photography. No wonder various publications trawl the forums looking for freebies.
If anyone finds one of their images on a website where permission hasn't been asked just hit them with a big bill. If you check out NUJ rates, the use of an 800x600 pixel image runs to several hundred pounds per year!
#55
arttidesco
-
- 6,709 posts
- Joined: April 10
Member
Posted 24 May 2010 - 22:11
A hefty invoice broken down into
1. usual copyright fee,
2. non disclosure of intent fee
3. failure to obtain permission fee
usually wakes up the accounts departments of most transgressors, you can also insist material which is pirated which this is, can be removed from the shelves, if store / stall holders refuse use your mobile to call the local constabulary, that usually ensures immediate action :-)
Best Wishes
1. usual copyright fee,
2. non disclosure of intent fee
3. failure to obtain permission fee
usually wakes up the accounts departments of most transgressors, you can also insist material which is pirated which this is, can be removed from the shelves, if store / stall holders refuse use your mobile to call the local constabulary, that usually ensures immediate action :-)
Best Wishes
