It's a small World Wide Web
On the weekend Victorian photographer Steve Arklay was told by a friend that one of his photos was being run on Instagram without credit. Just another day for the modern photographer, right? Imagery is the fuel on which the attention economy runs and those photos are oh-so-easy to attain. Just right click on the image in question and press save...
But rather than post a righteous comment against the photo, Steve did a little bit of digging and was surprised with what he discovered.
Rather than simply lifting the shot to boost his Instagram traffic, the photographer - who in case you're wondering won't be named and shamed on here - posted the image to his Facebook profile replete with his own photography watermark and, quite remarkably, a copyright symbol. After all, you gotta protect your stolen IP.
At left is the photo as it ran on Swellnet, and as it ran on Instagram. Note the copyright symbol.
The photographer also entered the photo in a photo contest on an Australian website, the fine print of which says that all photos entered in the competition can be used across the site. And that's exactly what happened. We've no idea if the photo won or not.
The photo also ended up being used on other Instagram accounts, both personal and commercial ("South swell, west winds. Open till 5 today!").
Meanwhile, on the Instagram account of 'Right Click Surf Photography' a notice was posted: "All photos on this page are for sale." Steve enquired about his own photo.
As most people will know, image resolution on the 'net is 72 DPI. You simply cant right click and print large images, and a 60cm x 90cm print is well beyond the scope.
Steve compromised to a lesser size and continued with the ruse.
At this point Steve had to hand over his details and the gig was up. The fella at 'Right Click Surf Photography' twigged to his name and all the stolen images were removed. And of course the transaction didn't go through either.
Even though a couple of laws were broken, Steve says he wasn't trying to create a sting by entering into a discussion with the photographer. He didn't have the cops on speed dial. Professional curiousity was the driving factor.
Steve's been shooting for nearly ten years, he ain't a green 'round the gills snapper, so he understands the ever-growing grey area surrounding images and copyright on the internet. Lest you fill your waking hours with outrage you just have to let a few infringements slide. Chalk them up as 'exposure'. Your daily act of goodwill.
But the line gets drawn when they're used to fill someone else's pockets.
Comments
Maybe watermark your shots in a subtle location.
After reading the first sentence Taylor Steele came to mind with his Fiji pic from someone elses inst a few yrs back.
First comment on the Facebook post:
"just saying...............if its a pic and its on the net it belongs to every one......copyright and watermarks mean jack shit any more when it comes to the net."
Steve's a lord, good on him for taking him on. Karma will sort it out.
Yes Udo I still send invoices to Taylor for the image but he doesn't reply. Surprise surprise/ Rang his secretary too and she would personally pass on the invoices.
Look forward to running into Taylor Steele next Fiji swell.
Ha, nice one Mick. I'm a bit late to this article but after reading it I immediately thought of you.
I am curious to know what level of infringement, and how 'big' the infringer has to be before you are allowed to have "outrage"? Implying that anyone who gets pissed off about their work being stolen is a "green 'round the gills snapper" and should just let infringements slide, etc. is a bit rich isn't it Stu?
Sure, the sheer quantity of surf photos and videos being produced has cheapened the industry, but it doesn't mean that if your work is stolen that you should chalk it up as exposure.
Getting an end result to chasing someone down who has stolen your work is difficult/impossible, but it still doesn't give anyone the right to take/repost/reupload the work without at least getting permission first.
I don't know, throw it open to the photographers, but I know lots of guys who'll reluctantly tolerate minor incursions simply 'cos it's not worth the effort.
I had some images used without permission. I contacted the magazine in question and told them it was OK to use the low res stuff copied from old editions but asked them to check with me first. They never did. They also said they would pay me a token fee. Never did. I don't care, but my stuff is old and I'm not trying to make a living from it.
Pretty poor form by this joker.
Share. Nothing. Online.
(apart from opinions on Swellnet haha)
Amazing kettle of fish opened. Add to this cloud data storage and easy ability to access this. Add to this digital technology making everyone a 'photographer'. Add to this the easy ability to right click images 'save to folder'. Then ability to remove/add watermarks. Add to this myriad images shared daily on social media, private chats. Lastly throw in TPP provisions for corporate entities to go to courts with supra-national jurisdiction over intellectual property...
Out of interest , how would you remove a watermark if it is a modification of a pixel ? I am assuming you can't just open the image and remove the watermark as in say a word processor. It is hoped the watermark is an individual pixel change hence too cumbersome for someone to edit back.
?
I'm convinced that Ripcurl used an image of mine , In a search ad .
Kind of hard to prove , but the weird thing is that I lost an old I Pod with the Image on it whilst travelling a corner of the earth in a totally different region . It's a bit trippy , but I imagine not many people would have had the same conditions to produce the same shot .If it wasn't a quiet spot I would share the image here to see if everyone recognised the ad.
As for anyone sharing or posting to Instagram , well you play with fire .
sorta off topic, but sorta not...about 12 yrs ago when I still smoked, I was filmed outside a building site in Collins street havin a gasper and coughing at the same time...was never told i'd been filmed...now, 12yrs later, anytime channel 9 runs a tobacco story they drag out that old stock footage and my phone rings for the next 45mins...
Steve should be entitled to a royalty for his image, or at least asked for consent, but what if he wanted it simply removed?...its HIS image, whether unridden wave or token selfie...shouldn't some sort of privacy/ fair use laws apply?
Scary thought for the young crowd that gives away images to FB, Inst etc...you clicked 'agree' its theirs now, forever.
Kinda happened to me too but not having a ciggie.
I was at Kondalilla falls in the Noosa hinterland years ago with a couple of sisters I knew and their cousin, unremarkable day, sly choof and just enjoying nature. I'm guessing late 90's if i recall. We'd hired an open top RAV4 for the day.
Anyway, a couple of years later my dad showed me a QTB road map of Qld they'd picked up from a servo and when it was folded up the cover shot clearly showed me in the drivers seat staring blissfully stoned out into the forest with the other three having their backs turned to the camera. Both the girls had great bums and bodacious ta-ta's so I'm guessing that's what caught the photogs eye?
Totally unaware it had been taken, came as a real surprise.
I'm not angry or anything but I reckon royalties in the order of the dozen or so they sold would be nice:)
There's no grey area. Australia has a Copyright Act and a bunch of intellectual property laws. It was petty theft. Perhaps if the thief was named and shamed - these things would be less likely to occur.
There is a few legal companies in America that specialize in this stuff, photographer supplies them with all the images they have ever posted on the net and they do regular scans of the net and when they find an image being used without consent send an invoice with a legal letter and take commission for it. Apparently some photographers are making more money off some photos this way than selling the images.
Agree, why not name and shame?
Thats at least some kind of rough justice which might deter petty thieves.
Is there a reason you didn;t name the perp Stu?
'Twas a decision made between Steve and I not to name them publicly. Call it an act of clemency, I reckon the lesson has been well and truly learnt.
,
It's a particular kind of turd that takes credit for other people's work. Happens in all spheres these days. You should see the average office environment and how your work gets taken by the boss and presented as their own.
Commonplace, ugly and cheap, a real sign of the character of the human involved.
Not a fan of it.
i cant believe that collectively that stu and steve didnt ay least name the piece of shit fake......this shits me......why write the article in the first place.....as a life long surf photog i at times still beat myself up for not having acted a bit more aggressively to some of the people that have wronged me.....
.this achieves nothing.......the only lesson the piece of shit has learned is that he can get away with it again
I agree with the "name & shame" call. Otherwise why write the article at all?
Another way of looking at this issue is to acknowledge that copyright laws are international ..but the real test is how a society/industry/individual respects these laws by their actions. I remember early Bali, when every major surf brand had their logos ripped off on tees etc I also remember reading about Bruce Raymond, buying 100's of Q tee's and then starting a bon-fire in a major street in Bali - to make a point.
I recently made a documentary and want to use a classic still of Sunset to emphasise a point made by the character being inter-viewed. The pic I wanted to use had been saved and sent to me as "1 Surf Barry", no water-mark - and no other clues as to who was the owner. After a month or trying to find who owned the shot, I sent it to Jeff Divine, who thought it was taken by Art Brewer. I contacted Art, sure enough it was his. And after a few emails about my intended use was able to get his permission to use. Because that's the respectful thing to do. In my opinion, we all need to uphold and reinforce the standard of respecting the IP in the original works of other. Incase I wasn't that way inclined, in passing Art made it very clear for me "all my images are Copyrighted and registered with the library of congress."
Maybe the reason why no name and shame was given was that his / her work would not be published on SN and other known sites ?? Just a thought. I could imagine publishers don't want to get in the middle of copyright battle.