Unauthorized Use Of My Photography - Clarification Needed

[dharvell]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? - Michigan

Photography is my bread and butter. My living is made shooting mainly portraiture and wedding photography, but I also shoot landscape/cityscape photography to make ends meet. That said, I was surprised when I came across a photograph of mine on City-Data.com in a forum titled, "3 Photos Of Your Favorite Skylines From Your State".

The image in question is a shot of downtown Grand Rapids, Michigan and was noticed on October 30, 2011.

When I discovered the image, I sent a request to remove the image to the email address listed for the City-Data.com legal department. My email went unanswered. A follow-up email was sent, by me, again requesting the removal of my image. The follow-up email also went unanswered. The first email was sent on October 30, 2011 with the second message being sent 2 weeks later.

Some advice I received from other "sources" include: renaming the image, creating a dead link on the forum in question; renaming the original image, then saving an obscene image using the original name of the image, so rather than having Grand Rapids appear, the obscene photo would appear; and placing an intrusive watermark across the image. None of these suggestions are feasible, as I link to this same photo from several forums and websites. Performing these suggestions would also affect the way I use the image, rather than just the offending website.

The clarification I require revolves around the copyright law, itself. Some tell me that my image is protected under copyright laws the moment it is presented in a tangible form. Others say that, though protected, the photograph needs to be registered with the US Copyright Office to be able to take legal action. Still others say that since the solution to the problem could be as simple as deleting the image, pursuing any copyright-related action is a futile point and will be dismissed, immediately.

I need your help to sort through what is true and what is not. Also, I would like to know what I need to do in order to settle for an amount that I would have normally charged for a non-exclusive license to use my photography on their website... if that is a possibility, at all.

Of course, if you require any additional information, please let me know and I will do my best to provide the information required. Any clarification would be and will be greatly appreciated!

 

[racer72]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? - Michigan

Photography is my bread and butter. My living is made shooting mainly portraiture and wedding photography, but I also shoot landscape/cityscape photography to make ends meet. That said, I was surprised when I came across a photograph of mine on City-Data.com in a forum titled, "3 Photos Of Your Favorite Skylines From Your State".

The image in question is a shot of downtown Grand Rapids, Michigan and was noticed on October 30, 2011.

When I discovered the image, I sent a request to remove the image to the email address listed for the City-Data.com legal department. My email went unanswered. A follow-up email was sent, by me, again requesting the removal of my image. The follow-up email also went unanswered. The first email was sent on October 30, 2011 with the second message being sent 2 weeks later.

Some advice I received from other "sources" include: renaming the image, creating a dead link on the forum in question; renaming the original image, then saving an obscene image using the original name of the image, so rather than having Grand Rapids appear, the obscene photo would appear; and placing an intrusive watermark across the image. None of these suggestions are feasible, as I link to this same photo from several forums and websites. Performing these suggestions would also affect the way I use the image, rather than just the offending website.

The clarification I require revolves around the copyright law, itself. Some tell me that my image is protected under copyright laws the moment it is presented in a tangible form. Others say that, though protected, the photograph needs to be registered with the US Copyright Office to be able to take legal action. Still others say that since the solution to the problem could be as simple as deleting the image, pursuing any copyright-related action is a futile point and will be dismissed, immediately.

I need your help to sort through what is true and what is not. Also, I would like to know what I need to do in order to settle for an amount that I would have normally charged for a non-exclusive license to use my photography on their website... if that is a possibility, at all.

Of course, if you require any additional information, please let me know and I will do my best to provide the information required. Any clarification would be and will be greatly appreciated!

If the image is being shown as a link to the image you are hosting, there is nothing you can really do except what you describe above. What happened to you is called deep linking. That is a risk you took when you put your photo on the internet without taking additional precautions to prevent it.

 

[dharvell]

I apologize if I wasn't clear. It is not a link to the image... the image is displayed on the forum, while the image, itself, is hosted on my server. An example would be:

<img src="http://www.ImageLocation.com/Image.jpg" />

The above, of course, will display an image located at that address, without needing to have the image on their server (the image remains on my server). Is that what your reply refers to? Just want to be sure we're all on the same page!

Thanks.

 

[racer72]

I apologize if I wasn't clear. It is not a link to the image... the image is displayed on the forum, while the image, itself, is hosted on my server. An example would be:



The above, of course, will display an image located at that address, without needing to have the image on their server (the image remains on my server). Is that what your reply refers to? Just want to be sure we're all on the same page!

Thanks.

Yes, that is what I meant. I have had the same thing happen to me. It is a gray area within the current copyright laws, they have been slow to address the current digital media. Even if you had a copyright claim, what damages you incurred from the display of your image at this site?

 

[dharvell]

Yes, that is what I meant. I have had the same thing happen to me. It is a gray area within the current copyright laws, they have been slow to address the current digital media. Even if you had a copyright claim, what damages you incurred from the display of your image at this site?

Okay... gotcha that time! I just wanted to make sure I understood, completely. The damages incurred are limited to what I would have normally charged for a non-exclusive license to use the photograph on the website. That license fee tends to differ by client (the art of haggling price is still alive and well... and I like that!). The monetary amount could be anything from a flat-fee license of $500 for non-exclusive license to use the image for an indefinite amount of time all the way to a $50/mo license if the image was to be used for a finite amount of time (in that case $50 * 9 months = $450 current total and growing). Since the licensed use of my images is a method I employ to help round out my family's budget, seeing my image lifted from my site without permission and without a proper license agreement, it equates to revenue I should be making... but am not.

Sounds like, as you stated, it is a gray area of the copyright law that should definitely be dealt with. But, all things considered, these types of gray areas could literally take decades to iron out in a way that makes all sides happy (and without opening even more holes). Over all, it sounds like a bitter pill that I just need to swallow, make a face at, and accept it as part of the "information age".

Thanks for your time and replies. They helped clear a lot of conflicting information!

 

[justalayman]

I attempted to research this a bit recently and if I recall correctly, there is a current case in the courts dealing with copyrights and linking. That means it wouldn't be settled law, yet. Again, if memory serves me correctly, the courts issued an injunction against the plaintiff to remove the link while this travels through the court.

What I would do is send them a snail mail letter. Enclose a contract offering to provide a license (whatever terms you wish) and an address to mail the money to or the option of removing the link if they do not wish to license the image.


While it may not get any result, just as well, it might. You don't lose anything by trying it. If the results are continuing to ignore you, then you can figure out what you want to do after that.

 

[dharvell]

I attempted to research this a bit recently and if I recall correctly, there is a current case in the courts dealing with copyrights and linking. That means it wouldn't be settled law, yet. Again, if memory serves me correctly, the courts issued an injunction against the plaintiff to remove the link while this travels through the court.

What I would do is send them a snail mail letter. Enclose a contract offering to provide a license (whatever terms you wish) and an address to mail the money to or the option of removing the link if they do not wish to license the image.


While it may not get any result, just as well, it might. You don't lose anything by trying it. If the results are continuing to ignore you, then you can figure out what you want to do after that.

Sounds like good advice and something I just might try. Like you said, what would it hurt? Thank you for that.