Warning to all caithness photographers

**upolian** · 20-Jun-12, 12:00

The only pro photographer i can see its happened to is Julie fraser,so yeah i can understand her anger on this issue!!

everybody else.... get a new hobby

**Bobinovich** · 20-Jun-12, 12:46

Originally Posted by upolian

The only pro photographer i can see its happened to is Julie fraser,so yeah i can understand her anger on this issue!!

everybody else.... get a new hobby

Does that mean you're condoning the theft of copyrighted material from everyone apart from Julie, just because it's not their bread & butter? That's an extremely naive & short sighted view IMO

**dragonfly** · 20-Jun-12, 13:08

Originally Posted by upolian

The only pro photographer i can see its happened to is Julie fraser,so yeah i can understand her anger on this issue!!

everybody else.... get a new hobby

Sorry I agree with bob here, doesn't matter if pro or hobbyist, both have spent money and time on making an image and it is theirs and unjust if someone just takes it without either requesting permission or buying the image in the correct way

**Mystical Potato Head** · 20-Jun-12, 14:57

Originally Posted by upolian

The only pro photographer i can see its happened to is Julie fraser,so yeah i can understand her anger on this issue!!

everybody else.... get a new hobby

Are you on a wind up here?

I spent over £4000 on a camera, 2 lenses,filters etc for landscape work.I then spent money setting up a website to sell large prints and canvases.
Bought an expensive A4 printer to sell A4 prints to save having to send them away to get done.
So when someone tries to make money out of my photos after i have shelled out all that money on camera and printing gear then maybe you might understand my anger
on the issue.
Are you saying you wouldnt be angry or have any issues with someone making money or trying to make money by selling photos you had taken
without your consent after you had shelled out several thousand on kit.
Of course if you were angry then i assume you would heed your own advice and get a new hobby also.[/

**dragonfly** · 20-Jun-12, 15:36

Originally Posted by Mystical Potato Head

Are you on a wind up here?.

I really hope it is wind up! Sorry Upolian but I just can't see your logic in that statement especially when you yourself are investing money in learning about photography :-/

**bothyman** · 20-Jun-12, 16:01

Originally Posted by 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.

It seems the person who started all this has apologised and offered to meet with the wronged parties to sort this out.

This seems to be a genuine mistake, but if the wronged paries are not Man/Woman enough to accept an apology that is their problem.

And before some starts jumping up and down, No, I would not like it if it happened to me and I would be very upset..

but I think I would be Gentleman enough to gracefully accept a genuine apology, if it was offered.

**kerry9316** · 20-Jun-12, 16:31

So if someone stole your car or broke in your house and stole your tv then they could just apologise and you'd accept that? I never usually reply to any of these types of threads because most of these types of comments are meant to inflame but god what rubbish!!!! you are off your rocker its theft what ever way you look at it and ignorance is not a defence in law! She made money of others peoples work plain and simple. Clearly you and other similiar posters have nothing better to do with your time than wind others up! - and to the other poster who said get a new hobby we can all see what yours is 'wind up merchant'! and no i'm not a photographer amateur or otherwise nor am I affected by this I just am appalled at the narrow mindeness some people display on this site! you'd be the first to complain when something goes wrong that affects you directly ,your type always do!

**Mystical Potato Head** · 20-Jun-12, 16:38

Originally Posted by bothyman

It seems the person who started all this has apologised and offered to meet with the wronged parties to sort this out.

This seems to be a genuine mistake, but if the wronged paries are not Man/Woman enough to accept an apology that is their problem.

And before some starts jumping up and down, No, I would not like it if it happened to me and I would be very upset..

but I think I would be Gentleman enough to gracefully accept a genuine apology, if it was offered.

What genuine mistake are you on about exactly?
Would this be the genuine mistake where she offered to buy photos from Douglas,he refused so she just downloaded them anyway?
Sorry but there has been no genuine mistake made here.

**bothyman** · 20-Jun-12, 16:58

Originally Posted by Mystical Potato Head

What genuine mistake are you on about exactly?
Would this be the genuine mistake where she offered to buy photos from Douglas,he refused so she just downloaded them anyway?
Sorry but there has been no genuine mistake made here.

In that case it is theft and I would not accept an apology.

Sorry MPH, but I missed that bit.

Kerry9316. maybe you know more about this than I do, hence your tirade of abuse towards me .

**kerry9316** · 20-Jun-12, 17:47

Bothyman the only thing I directed at you was that you were mad to think it was anything other than theft - I apologise if you felt the rest was directed at you I clearly said the remainder was about the other poster who said people should get another hobby!

**dubzter** · 20-Jun-12, 20:56

Originally Posted by gillsbay

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

Apologies, I forgot to add that they are also resized to 1024 pixels on their longest side.

**Deemac** · 21-Jun-12, 14:54

Interesting stuff folks. Some good points, and as expected, some less so.

My own strategy these days is to EXif data all my images from RAW file downwards (in fact it is done in the camera when I take the shots as well as importing into Lightroom from the data card). Everything is watermarked and exported to no larger than 800 pixels on the longest side. I have to admit that my days of posting photos on the .org are very far and few between mainly due to the rise of Facebook and a lack of critical / useful technical feedback that I was mainly interested in at the time. I also have moved from mainly landscape type work to far more people based photography (portraiture and weddings etc.) which are far less generally interesting in a forum context.

Having said this, I know for a fact that many of my shots (and others mentioned here) are regularly being downloaded off of Facebook, taken to a local chemist / printlab, with watermarks left on and being printed after the customer has indicated that they are the originator of the photo (which the printlab insists on them doing to cover there own businesses legal backs!). This is also copyright theft.

We appear to have an endemic culture based on, if an image is on-line, it is fair game and free to use, duplicate and replicate.