Warning to all caithness photographers

[Mystical Potato Head]

I've just remembered she pm'd me a couple of times back in March asking advice on taking sunset shots,asking what software i used,how i photoshopped shots to get them to look like the did.
Obviously too difficult for her to try,doubt if she even made the effort to try.The only thing she tried was to make money from the work of others,knowingly and quite deliberately.

Well after this hopefully all she can sell now is her brass neck.Hopefully all the county will know about her and avoid anything and everything to do with her "local craftwork"

She should be banned from here as well.

She even asked for unwanted photo frames from orgers so not only did she rip off others photos, she also tried to get the frames for next to nowt or nowt as well.

[Tatbabe]

I would like to apologize and am deeply sorry about the upset I have caused - I know this doesn't make things better or change things.

All downloaded photos have been deleted and I am confirming I will no longer use them.

I would like to meet with all parties concerned or their representative to find a solution to this unfortunate situation, i.e. signing a document consisting of terms and conditions of not violating future copy rights and associated consequences.

[pat]

Tatbabe
What about the pictures etc you have already sold - do you know where and to whom they have been sold? You have lied and cheated and thought the folk in Caithness would be so laid back and not know anything about copyright.
Why did you not take you own pictures?
I consider an apology is nowhere near compensation for lying, cheating and conning people into buying something which is not yours in the first place - the word CROOK with knowledge and intent springs to mind, lying cheating lowlife scum is another term I would consider.

A photographer friend here on Lewis has had to overprint each and every photo of his on display on the web, has put his name in huge letters across the entire collectionto try to stop this type of thing happening, dispite this many of his photos have continued to be used on various web pages with no accreditation or permission. At present he is pursuing many of the people using his photographs illegally on web sites through the copyright system.

[ShelleyCowie]

I would like to apologize and am deeply sorry about the upset I have caused - I know this doesn't make things better or change things.

All downloaded photos have been deleted and I am confirming I will no longer use them.

I would like to meet with all parties concerned or their representative to find a solution to this unfortunate situation, i.e. signing a document consisting of terms and conditions of not violating future copy rights and associated consequences.

I know im no part of this, but in my opinion signing a piece of paper just wouldnt cut it. You signed a piece of paper in a shop stating the prints taken were yours so it could be sold. So obviously documents means nothing to you. And you should know copyright laws, so its not as if you never knew what you was doing.

You say you have deleted all images, but are you going to pay the photographers who actually took the photos, the money you have made from them?

[CHUF]

The shop Made In Caithness is a unique shop as it does not buy in commencial products and sell them as crafts. In fact at my own expense, time and effort allong with the much appreciated dedicated volunteer staff the shop provides an outlet for residents of Caithness only,to sell their artwork or craftwork directly to the public, which has to be hand made by the seller, thus hopefully retaining the highly skilled arts and crafts of this county. A small percentage being deducted towards the costs involved.
Every effort is made to ensure high quality and that there is no infringement of copyright, including the signing of a contract covering all such matters. However unscrupulous fraudsters are very hard to detect.
Jennifer Rossa falls into this category."Her photographs" were a recent entry and had only been displayed for 4 days in which time there had been no sales of any of her items.
When Douglas Cowie informed me that one of her pictures was in fact a copy of one of his, I immediately withdrew all her items. She has been informed that her items have been retained in case they should be required for further action by the holders of copyright.
We are not the only victims of this crime in Wick, she has had at least one other outlet, and as you can read on Caithness.org's Photography forum, you will see how many people she has conned, not only here in Caithness, but on the web also.
I would be interested to know how many other people have come across her "Sales/Adverts".

[Dadie]

I think it will take a lot more than an apology and a bit of paper signed....no matter what the document says.
You have a blatent disregard to paperwork and what it says.
You have abused the photographers work on so many levels, and on different sites, for sale at silly prices.
And thought you wouldnt be found out!
I dont know if stealing copyright is for the criminal or civil courts, but, I think you should be punished by the court system as it was a premeditated crime to line your pockets from other peoples work.

[upolian]

Has anybody looked at the latest copyright law regarding photographs? Also why people put water marks at the bottom or bottom of a photograph is beyond me,good luck getting a prosecution,majority of photos weren't even copyright in accordance to the copyright law... o

Still not a nice thing to do,knowingly taking and selling photos that are not your own,apology? Pfffffft damage is done

[gillsbay]

Has anybody looked at the latest copyright law regarding photographs? Also why people put water marks at the bottom or bottom of a photograph is beyond me,good luck getting a prosecution,majority of photos weren't even copyright in accordance to the copyright law... o

Still not a nice thing to do,knowingly taking and selling photos that are not your own,apology? Pfffffft damage is done

I think the law on copyright is fairly clear:-

Who owns the copyright on photographs?Under law, it is the photographer who will own copyright on any photos he/she has taken, with the following exceptions:

• If the photographer is an employee of the company the photos are taken for, or is an employee of a company instructed to take the photos, the photographer will be acting on behalf of his/her employer, and the company the photographer works for will own the copyright.
• If there is an agreement that assigns copyright to another party.

In all other cases, the photographer will retain the copyright, if the photographer has been paid for his work, the payment will be for the photographer’s time and typically an allocated number of prints. The copyright to the photos will remain with the photographer, and therefore any reproduction without permission would be an infringement of copyright.
Examples:

• If Bill Smith asks Peter Jones the photographer to photograph his wedding. Peter Jones will normally provide a single copy of the prints as part of the fee, but any additional prints Bill or his family and friend want must be ordered via Peter as he is the copyright owner and controls who can copy his work.
• If Bill Smith engages the services of XYZ-Photos for the same job, and Peter is an employee of XYZ-Photo who instruct Peter to take the photos, XYZ-Photos will be the copyright owner and control how they are used.

Source - http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/pr...aphy_copyright

[bothyman]

Has anybody looked at the latest copyright law regarding photographs? Also why people put water marks at the bottom or bottom of a photograph is beyond me,good luck getting a prosecution,majority of photos weren't even copyright in accordance to the copyright law... o

Still not a nice thing to do,knowingly taking and selling photos that are not your own,apology? Pfffffft damage is done

So the boot could be on the other foot, if it is found not to be copyright ?? who sues who ??

I'm surprised the moderators have let it go this far, as all this could have been sorted out quietly rather than turn it into a Witch Hunt..

I did look into the Copyright Law a while back and found putting photographs on the internet may not be a good idea, if you want to keep them to yourself..

Hopefully all sides can sort this out and everyone can learn from this.

[KILTIECAULDBUM]

I think the law on copyright is fairly clear:-

Who owns the copyright on photographs?Under law, it is the photographer who will own copyright on any photos he/she has taken, with the following exceptions:

• If the photographer is an employee of the company the photos are taken for, or is an employee of a company instructed to take the photos, the photographer will be acting on behalf of his/her employer, and the company the photographer works for will own the copyright.
• If there is an agreement that assigns copyright to another party.

In all other cases, the photographer will retain the copyright, if the photographer has been paid for his work, the payment will be for the photographer’s time and typically an allocated number of prints. The copyright to the photos will remain with the photographer, and therefore any reproduction without permission would be an infringement of copyright.
Examples:

• If Bill Smith asks Peter Jones the photographer to photograph his wedding. Peter Jones will normally provide a single copy of the prints as part of the fee, but any additional prints Bill or his family and friend want must be ordered via Peter as he is the copyright owner and controls who can copy his work.
• If Bill Smith engages the services of XYZ-Photos for the same job, and Peter is an employee of XYZ-Photo who instruct Peter to take the photos, XYZ-Photos will be the copyright owner and control how they are used.

Source - http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/pr...aphy_copyright

Reading all this with interest, as I've always wondered about how some of the spectacular photo's on here could be taken and used without the owners consent? Reading the link above, point No. 2 (i) and (ii) suggests you would would actually have to pay a fee to register any photo's that you wish to have Copyrighted? Just having ''Copyright'' or your name etc. as a watermark on your image would appear to mean nothing if it's not registered?

I hope all this doesn't stop the gifted photographers on the .org from showing their excellent work on here for the rest of us to enjoy!!
Good luck with sorting this mess out.

Kcb.

[North Light]

Copyright law is fairly simple but unfortunately there are a lot of misconceptions about it.

The use in any way of an image without the copyright holders permission is a breach of copyright, the image does not have to be marked, and unless a licence is issued, or as "gillsbay" has detailed, the photographer is an employee of the company who the photographs are taken for, the copyright stays with the author.

My understanding is that breach of copyright would normally be treated as a civil action, but if the breach is intentional, the person or organisation committing the breach is knowingly breaching copyright, and a financial gain is made, then this could be a criminal action.

Julie, thanks for highlighting the possibility of one of the photographs being mine, without seeing a larger and clearer image it's difficult to confirm.

[upolian]

What i don't understand is where had the watermarks gone if there was any? Lesson to be learnt,put them through the middle and difficult to remove....

[Mystical Potato Head]

What i don't understand is where had the watermarks gone if there was any? Lesson to be learnt,put them through the middle and difficult to remove....

I've never bothered with watermarks,only advantage there is from it is to advertise your website or company name,from my point of view it just ruins the look of the photo,thats why i've never bothered with a watermark.Also the fact that its not very difficult to remove one with a little photoshop knowledge,even one through the middle.
I think most of the photos under question here didnt have watermarks,mine certainly didnt but as North Light rightly says an image does not need to be marked.The photographer has the copyright to their photos whether
there is a watermark or not.A fact that some people obviously dont understand.

[bothyman]

But how do you prove someone has stolen one of your photographs??

I once took a photograph of Stac Polly, then a few months later I saw a photograph that looked the same in a book, could I have been prosecuted under the copyright law even though I knew I had taken the photograph myself. ??

If I take a photograph of Westerdale Mill can I get into trouble if it looks the same as some elses.

I'm just wondering where you draw the line, just incase someone decides one of my photographs looks like theirs..

Anyone could take a photograph off the internet, tweak it and claim it was their own.

[dragonfly]

NL, the photo I saw was of Dunnet Beach looking through the top of the dunes out towards sea and Dunnet Head, I have similar ones but having checked them it wasn't one of mine.

and as for marking images I think most photographers have the copyright built into the exif data these days, I know I do. I hate watermarking but its what I have to do from now on with all my images

[dragonfly]

But how do you prove someone has stolen one of your photographs??

I once took a photograph of Stac Polly, then a few months later I saw a photograph that looked the same in a book, could I have been prosecuted under the copyright law even though I knew I had taken the photograph myself. ??

If I take a photograph of Westerdale Mill can I get into trouble if it looks the same as some elses.

I'm just wondering where you draw the line, just incase someone decides one of my photographs looks like theirs..

Anyone could take a photograph off the internet, tweak it and claim it was their own.

as I said above before reading your post make sure your name is on the exif data when downloading the images onto the computer

[Mystical Potato Head]

But how do you prove someone has stolen one of your photographs??

I once took a photograph of Stac Polly, then a few months later I saw a photograph that looked the same in a book, could I have been prosecuted under the copyright law even though I knew I had taken the photograph myself. ??

If I take a photograph of Westerdale Mill can I get into trouble if it looks the same as some elses.



I'm just wondering where you draw the line, just incase someone decides one of my photographs looks like theirs..

Anyone could take a photograph off the internet, tweak it and claim it was their own.

You can take a photo thats is identical to someone elses.There is no copyright on a view.Some scenes can only be taken from a certain viewpoint so they all tend to look similar.Nearly all Dale Mill shots are taken from the bridge or looking across the river. The Old Man of Hoy is almost always taken from the ferry so shots that are almost identical are bound to show up from time to time.No law against your photo looking like someone elses and vice versa.It makes a nice challenge to go to these places and try and get a different view to everyone else,if possible.

[pat]

Photos are very very rarely the same - the clouds are different, as would be the sea, grass at a different height, angle etc al small pointers as to whether picture has been 'lifted' from an original work of art, similar they may be, to be an exact replica would be as rare as rocking horse deposits.

[dubzter]

There is no ambiguity in copyright law, it is quite clear as stated by gillsbay above. You don't have to register photographs for them to be covered under copyright but it may help in the event of a claim.

I was lucky that mine haven't been used but I will ensure that all of my photographs will have copyright information in the exif info, they will be watermarked and they will only be posted on the Internet at a low resolution of 72ppi.

[gillsbay]

There is no ambiguity in copyright law, it is quite clear as stated by gillsbay above. You don't have to register photographs for them to be covered under copyright but it may help in the event of a claim.

I was lucky that mine haven't been used but I will ensure that all of my photographs will have copyright information in the exif info, they will be watermarked and they will only be posted on the Internet at a low resolution of 72ppi.

72ppi means very little, if you post a 18megapixel picture at "72ppi" it will still print as a 18megapixel image, better to post reduced size with fairly high compression so if someone tries to do a decent sized print then the quality will be poor