Interesting!

  • Thread starter Thread starter The Ghost of FM
  • Start date Start date
T

The Ghost of FM

Banned
http://toronto.en.craigslist.ca/drh/msg/1821657474.html

I was taking a look on Craig's list for fun to see what's out there locally and came across a guy who's using Sweetbeat's 388 pictures that I worked on to sell his 388! :rolleyes:

I know I've put up these pictures in the TASCAM wallpaper thread for us here to use as wallpaper but admit to feeling a bit ripped off to see other out there using them for commercial purposes with no payment to sweetbeats or myself.

This might seem petty to some of you but I do this for a living now and don't like to see others making money off of mine or sweetbeat's efforts to make these pictures available for your personal, non-commercial use.

What if anything do you guys think should be done about this?

Cheers! :)
 
Thats funny.I noticed that too on kijiji.I thought of your work instantly when I saw it.It's strange how people cant take pictures of their own gear when trying to sell it.Even though I understand if people come across proffesional pics like yours they're gonna use em.
 
Mmm, they really are beautiful photos. Looking at them makes me feel kinda tingly.
 
388

Do those pics show up in google pics search? Maybe it was just a random search and they came up, rather than an attempt to "steal" them.

But still, dude should use his own pics.
 
I guess I'm petty. I don't think its right. Normally when this happens I implore the seller to add a disclaimer that the pictures aren't of the actual item. In this case I think the seller needs to pull them...dunno what what the laws are in Canada but in the US I believe the pictures would be considered copyrighted. It gets sticky when they aren't marked as such, but I believe it can be proven that the images originated from you, then they're yours. It all boils down to this issue of cheese-offedness: potential buyers are going to think that the 388 pictured is what is for sale. That's wrong (unless they indicated so...have to look at the listing yet...) actually the other issue is that the pictures have your name on them. not right.
 
I sent the seller an email asking if all the pictures were of his machine...
 
It bothers me when people use pics like this for profit. What bothers me a bit more is the seller doesn’t say these aren’t the pics of the actual unit he is selling, so it’s misleading.

I’ve had my descriptions and pics used without my permission a lot on eBay and I’m very unhappy about it. When I catch it I report it to eBay and they remove the listing. I’m very adamant about people not using my hard work for free. I had a large music chain using my descriptions a few years ago. I warned them about it once and the manager promised it wouldn’t happen again. But it did happen again so I sent him an invoice for a seller’s fee... and he paid it via paypal the next day. ;)

If someone grabs a pic off google or something I’m not sure if anything could be done, but Craigslist might want to know that he’s using pics that don’t represent his actual item.

:)
 
The Great Cobb said:
Do those pics show up in google pics search? Maybe it was just a random search and they came up, rather than an attempt to "steal" them.

But still, dude should use his own pics.
Click to expand...

Even if they were found on a google image search, that doesn't give anyone a license to use the pics for commercial purposes and Google does have warnings posted on its site that images are subject to copyright laws so, that's not really an out of any kind what so ever.

How it's supposed to work is that when images are produced specifically for commercial usages, property and model release contracts have to be secured by the photographer so that people get paid for having their mugs or their property used in images that would be part of an advertising campaign or used on packaging of a product designed to sell in stores or through any other means of business transaction.

If an image is just intended for private, non-commercial use, then the laws are far more slack but once money enters into the picture, its a different story.

Cheers! :)
 
It's too bad they weren't pictures of your machine. Because, if he used your pictures, which he clearly stole, then it's not a far claim to make that he also stole your machine. But, then you'd be playing his game.

-MD
 
themaddog said:
It's too bad they weren't pictures of your machine. Because, if he used your pictures, which he clearly stole, then it's not a far claim to make that he also stole your machine. But, then you'd be playing his game.

-MD
Click to expand...

Well in this particular case, the images belong to sweetbeats and he wrote to the Craig's list guy who's using his pictures without his permission. If they were mine, then I would have contacted him with an order to pull the pictures or pay me a usage fee and if he refused, then I'd report the ad to Craig's List.

Cheers! :)
 
sweetbeats said:
I guess I'm petty. I don't think its right. Normally when this happens I implore the seller to add a disclaimer that the pictures aren't of the actual item. In this case I think the seller needs to pull them...dunno what what the laws are in Canada but in the US I believe the pictures would be considered copyrighted. It gets sticky when they aren't marked as such, but I believe it can be proven that the images originated from you, then they're yours. It all boils down to this issue of cheese-offedness: potential buyers are going to think that the 388 pictured is what is for sale. That's wrong (unless they indicated so...have to look at the listing yet...) actually the other issue is that the pictures have your name on them. not right.
Click to expand...

Actually, it doesn't matter if a name or legal notice appears on the pictures in question. What matters is that copyright is automatically granted to the original photographer of the image unless they are hired by a separate party to take pictures for them and they have agreed as a condition of employment that the images belong to their employer alone and that their pay for taking those images is their sole compensation.

In this particular case, the Craig's List dude does not posses a contract, model or property release contract which would grant him the legal authority to use the images for commercial purposes. So it's a pretty straight forward thing to prove that you are the rightful owner of the image as you hold the original full sized file and the exif data embedded into the image shows the make, model and shot details including the date of creation. There is also much more embedded information of the file including things like the serial number of the camera body that took the shot so, even if the perp strips this information off of his copy of the image, it doesn't remove your data on your original image.

What I will do though in the future is put a more convincing copyright notice on the images which might help to deter this issue in the future from popping up as often.

I also want you and everyone else here to know that any of the images I work on for you guys does not mean that I am taking ownership of the image away from anyone. They belong to you 100% and I offer my retouching efforts for free. That said, if you end up selling one of those images for a shit load of money, I hope you'll put me in your will! :D

Cheers! :)
 
welcome to the post-modern world

where information is free for the taking

access is instant

maybe now you appreciate hip hop and electronic (sampled) music a bit better,

as they are reflections (expressions) of the current state of our world.

later! :p
 
FALKEN said:
welcome to the post-modern world

where information is free for the taking

access is instant

maybe now you appreciate hip hop and electronic (sampled) music a bit better,

as they are reflections (expressions) of the current state of our world.

later! :p
Click to expand...

That's a whole other kettle of fish as artists and bands can argue back and forth about how similar or dissimilar one song is to another.

Thankfully, when it comes to digital photography, there is embedded exif data on the original file that can help to prove ownership pretty easily and clearly. And coupled with a model/property release contract or the lack there-of, it makes pretty short work out of knowing who's who and what's what.

Cheers! :)
 
I got a reply. He said that the images arestock Tascam and his machine is similar.

I've sent him another reply calling out his lie. Waiting for his response...
 
Yup...he was pretty gracious in his subsequent responses and as you noticed took the initative to pull the pictures down.
 
I see he's interested in trading the 388 for a digital camera...so, perhaps once this transaction is complete he'll be able to take his own freakin' photos :D.
 
I personally have no tolerance for this sort of thing. I even got pissed off at a buyer who bought a tape deck from me years back and was re-using my photos. He had a bag of excuses and actually turned it around as if it was may fault. Why can't people just say "the photos are not mine", at the very least? It's about being honest and decent. Yours are even more "up for grabs", Jeff, 'cause there's really nothing like it on the net. I would send 'em an invoice like Tim did. Classic! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top