
Letters to my copyright infringers - RougeFemme
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/compound-eye/2013/12/03/letters-to-my-copyright-infringers/
======
bmelton
As someone who runs a number of message boards, I can say that I would be
_thrilled_ to receive such high quality takedown notices.

I deal with these often enough that I can attest to the general badness of
takedown notices -- usually, they include the victim's name, the accusation
that I'm infringing, and the demand for a takedown. Most noticeably, what is
almost always missing are descriptions of the images, links to where they're
located on the site (I can't find an image by name if one of my members posted
it -- I just can't), etc.

As these include all of the above, I have to say kudos.

Somewhat offtopic, perhaps I should post my "Here's why I'm not complying with
your DMCA takedown notice" standard letters as a response. (Not because I'm a
dick, but because I don't personally violate image copyrights, and if my
members do, it's hosted externally by design -- what I do instead is redirect
the complainant to where the image is hosted and offer any assistance I can,
short of editing user posts on my properties.)

~~~
johnny99
If someone is hosting an actually infringing image elsewhere, but using your
site to display it, it seems to me that you're at least complicit, and at
worst a sort of fence.

If someone sends a polite, specific, with-links-and-supporting-documentation
email, don't you think it might be fair to remove the link, if not the post?

~~~
SavvyGuard
You should reread the comment you're replying to.

> Most noticeably, what is almost always missing are descriptions of the
> images, links to where they're located on the site

------
notcub
Interesting. Scientific American used a photo of mine from Flickr[1] that is
not licensed for commercial use[2] for one of their articles[3]. I'd be happy
to grant them a license to use the image if they had of asked, so it seemed
like a waste time to follow up on, just to demand that they do nothing and
have a license. Nonetheless they are technically in violation.

It does seem a little have-your-cake-and-eat-it that they would do this on the
one hand, and publish a blog article encouraging people in my situation to go
after violators with a form letter. On the other hand, the article does note:

> The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of
> Scientific American.

[1]
[http://www.flickr.com/photos/notcub/917981750/](http://www.flickr.com/photos/notcub/917981750/)

[2] [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-
sa/2.0/deed.en](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en)

[3]
[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=poisoning-t...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=poisoning-
the-well-how-the-feds-let-energy-and-mining-companies-pollute-underground)

------
spiritplumber
The last time I was in an attribution conflict was with the OpenROV guys. What
I told them was "If you give me back the Make Magazine prize that you won with
my design, and you have Make change the links, I will allow you to live." It
got done in a week.

~~~
joshu
What happened?

~~~
spiritplumber
What happened is that two guys comes to me, says "Make me a ROV that fits in
this plastic shell I made", and I do. Then he goes to maker faire NY to show
it off. I do not go with him because a friend of mine had a panic attack and
needed someone to stay home with her. Next thing I know, the ROV had been done
by the two guys without my input.

I do not mind them making money on the design (which has since been improved)
largely because guy #2 had just gotten married with a baby on the way, but the
lack of attribution irritated me, so I had a talk with them and with someone
from Make about it.

The fact that they changed the design a little means that the ROV's battery
life is about two thirds of what it was supposed to be, and cannot recharge
while stopped underwater.

I may release the intended version next year if there is any interest.

------
gingerlime
We're in a similar situation. We've built an online platform for learning
anatomy[1], and produce our own original illustrations. These are available
(to view) for free[2], which makes it also easy to copy. Some bloggers even
use our CDN, costing us even more money.

We're based in Berlin, Germany, so not entirely sure if (or how) the DMCA
applies. But if we were to send a takedown notice (DMCA or otherwise), we're
still not sure about one thing:

For user-generated-content sites, do we have to keep policing those sites for
"repeat offenders"? Or is this the site's responsibility? Users are likely to
keep uploading our content and it can become labour intensive over time...

[1] [https://www.kenhub.com](https://www.kenhub.com) [2]
[https://www.kenhub.com/en/atlas](https://www.kenhub.com/en/atlas)

~~~
jlgaddis
_> For user-generated-content sites, do we have to keep policing those sites
for "repeat offenders"? Or is this the site's responsibility?_

It is not the site's responsibility. Under the DMCA they are obligated to
remove infringing material but there is no requirement for ongoing
"monitoring".

~~~
gingerlime
Thanks. That's interesting. We've heard that according to EU copyright laws
things are a little different, but since it's cross-border (and even without
it), things can get very tricky...

I wonder if anybody has first-hand experience in a similar situation. This
will be really helpful.

------
DanielBMarkham
I run a bunch of small content sites, and dad a guy email me last month with
an image that was a problem.

It was a 64px icon version of a generic photograph of a pill bottle and pills
that he had used the larger version on his site.

I don't have a problem with playing nice and abiding by the law, but geesh. We
spent a ton of money screwing around with a small image that wasn't even
directly related to his site or work, much less mine.

Made me wonder if there was some other part of the story I was missing.

------
mrdiran
Disclaimer: Shameless Plug.

I'm working on a tool to help people out with this problem. My tool will
monitor the internet and email you when your images are used on other sites.
For a current solution, you'll need to do a google reverse image search, one
by one for each image, periodically. This is tedious work nobody really wants
to do. My tool will be making this process a whole lot easier. All you have to
do is type in your site address, the tool will scan your site for all images
and will email you a report every week on where your images are being used.

To join as a beta tester or early adopter, please submit your email on my
landing page www.checkmypics.com .

I'm also looking for other techies to help out with development. Experience
with scraping is a plus!

\- Diran (YC S13 rejected applicant)

~~~
negrit
Too bad you don't accept email like foo.bar+something@gmail.com

~~~
mrdiran
I don't quite understand what you mean. Message me? diran@dirango.com

~~~
clienthunter
He means the validation of your sign-ups' email addresses is too restrictive
and disallowing the '+' (which is valid).

In fact, an awful lot of characters usually excluded are valid. There's a spec
somewhere.

------
BorisMelnik
"On top of being a copyright violation, the use of a potentially endangered
insect to sell an insect-killing product is both inappropriate and offensive."

rofld

~~~
steveklabnik
DH0. You can do better!

[http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html)

~~~
abhididdigi
I'm not sure if BorisMelnik is disagreeing.

------
e28eta
Interesting article, even better pictures. I spent a little time browsing his
galleries, and was quite impressed.

~~~
kubiiii
I wanted to say exactly the same. Upon reading this interesting article, don't
forget to check out the galleries. No wonder why those pictures are being
widely used, they are amazing.

~~~
masklinn
Yeah Alex Wild is a fantastic photographer (and as far as I've seen human
being), following him on twitter or his blogging venues is a real treat of
fantastic insect photographs, and stuff about photography in general (IIRC he
hosts insect photog trips in Belize or something along those lines). And I
find seeing him battling with copyright infringement, while definitely a waste
of his time, an often-needed recentering as a developer since my experience
with IP is generally bullshit patents leading to a slanted view of IP.

------
slapshot
But doesn't he realize how much free exposure he's missing out on? /sarcasm

~~~
harshreality
I think he does, which is why for non-commercial infringement (example 2) he
asks that the image simply be credited and linked to his site.

~~~
bostik
In particular, he explains why he requires the attribution and link to
originals. _To prevent downstream infringement._

It should be obvious from these letters that drive-by "lift it from the web,
slap on own product" infringement is unpleasantly common. A person I knew in
university has had book reviews lifted word-for-word from her site and used
elsewhere for endorsement/advertising purposes. At least with text it's
relatively easy to find identical snippets.

Without any attribution, I can only imagine how difficult it would be to track
down an original photo once it has passed through a dozen different image
sites.

------
quadrangle
The propaganda still present:

"My original, copyright-protected work is here"

Should be "My original, copyright- _restricted_ work is here"

"I don’t mean to be harsh, but photography is how I make my living." — implies
that stopping sharing of his photographs is necessarily fundamental to living
as a photographer (may be today, but this shouldn't be accepted as the only
way our economy can work)

"On top of being a copyright violation, the use of a potentially endangered
insect to sell an insect-killing product is both inappropriate and offensive."
Wow, yeah, but it's the use that's offensive, not so much the infringement. I
would have sent this anyway, and if they kept using it, I'd make a public
stink about it.

"Such infringements are illegal, they waste my time, and they devalue my
work." The first part is true, the second part is only because he chooses to
waste his time, and the third part is completely wrong.

It remains totally unclear whether these take-downs are actually benefiting
the photographer. It is nice that he's human and reasonable, but there's still
so many assumptions here.

------
cinitriqs
The funny thing is... people refer to google image search as a solution to
track down infringers... yet... the fact that those pictures can be found on
google image search seems to be overlooked... isn't google infringing by
showing us any pictures at all? or are they allowed to make money off of it by
showing it in their image search results... Just stating the obvious here...
it's not infringement if you are... big brother?

~~~
Argorak
As always, context is the problem. Google is showing those pictures because
they run a search service, which has the goal of passing you off to the
orignating site. Also, you _can_ tell Google to not index these images
(robots.txt) etc. The thing with search machines is that the laws were rarely
written with them in mind.

Also, there are attempts to implement precisely what you are arguing here. In
Germany, there is the Leistungsschutzrecht for Text, which says that you have
to pay for excerpts like Google creates them:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancillary_copyright_for_press_p...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancillary_copyright_for_press_publishers)

They are usually a horrible mess.

------
wikwocket
Nice letters, shame that photographers have to spend time policing usages of
their work though.

I wonder if there is a lightweight solution that can be built, something that
will search for your images online, try to find contact info for infringers,
and (on your authorization), send email takedown requests and track the
replies?

I know you can retain legal help to do this now, but it might be an
interesting SAAS sort of offering.

~~~
mrdiran
That's exactly what I'm working on!

If anyone wants to help out. Message me at diran@dirango.com

To get on the list for launch, subscribe at www.checkmypics.com

------
collyw
I haven't too much sympathy for photographers as a group in general, as they
regularly take my picture without asking.

Its usually (in my opinion) the subject of the photograph that makes it
interesting, not the style that a photographer has put on it. I always find it
a bit strange that copyright seems to protect the photographers rights, while
ignoring the subject.

~~~
delinka
Copyright is concerned with the _creator_ of a work. The photographer created
a photograph by setting up the camera and pressing the button.

That said, the smart photographer will obtain a license from the model (a
'model release') to distribute photos with the model's likeness. If you find
photos of yourself being reproduced when you gave no permission, you may
indeed have a legal beef with the photographer ... just not under copyright
law.

~~~
daenz
My fashion is a work of art, of which the photographer is illegally
reproducing a visual copy.

~~~
delinka
Are you attempting to suggest that how you've dressed is deserving of
copyright protection? You'll need to argue that before a judge. I'd bet that
you'll have to show that much of your own creations (of clothing or jewelry)
are involved, conscious creative effort summoned in deciding what pieces
complement others to make the impression you are striving for, etc. If you
suggest that making a copyrightable ensemble out of off-the-shelf clothing is
permissible, then Levi's gets to claim similar copyright on their "works of
art" and no one can ever photograph anyone else wearing them without
permission of Levi's. It is my opinion that unless you've done what I mention
above (created the parts yourself, etc) then your choice of dress today has no
copyright protection.

We can discuss our opinions on the finer details of the ambiguities of
copyright until the universe collapses in on itself and it's pointless until
you take your case to the courts and get a definitive legal ruling.

~~~
daenz
The point I'm trying to make is that copyright rules are severely
inconsistent. It serves no other purpose than to give people new tools to
oppress eachother within the legal system. You know there's a problem when the
gray area is so large it requires courts to make decisions like what art is
"transformative" and what is not. That is not a court's decision, but because
we have things like copyright infringment of media, it is.

Other industries could follow the fashion industry's lead and drop copyright
infringment altogether. Somehow they manage survive and innovate without it
using just social pressures, not legal pressures.

~~~
delinka
Involving the courts is by design. Because Congress decided to create this
right, and because it's messy, and because creating rules around "messy" is a
Hard Problem ... let's involve the courts! As evidence that this was
intentional, see "fair use" \- no one thinks they're allowed to make a fair
use decision without filing a lawsuit.

Point: I get why the courts are involved. But I'm right there with you that
the whole system gets used as an oppressive instrument.

------
negrit
I just made a couple research and some of my pictures are also being use in
some mobile apps/websites.

Does anyone has a tool to check if pictures are being hosted somewhere else ?
I don't want to run 100 queries on google.

~~~
dmunoz
I'm not sure exactly what you are asking for, but TinEye reverse image search
might be what you are after?

[https://tineye.com/](https://tineye.com/)

~~~
gingerlime
tineye looks great and even has a (commercial) API. When we tried it however,
it could hardly find any image.

Google reverse image search seemed to produce many more results, including
images appearing inside youtube videos!

------
mathattack
I'm curious if request #5 actually ever generated revenue.

------
yason
I hope he still has time to shoot photographs, too. :-/

~~~
tbarbugli
Well thats why he need email templates :) Looking at the galleries it seems
like it does!

------
imperialdrive
my last read of the night - and turned out to be pretty interesting... thanks!

