I have been on flickr for almost 3 years now.  I love it, and it's definitely become a hobby of mine.

 

I'm really happy that a lot of websites out there have shown interest in my photos.  I'm also happy that 99% of all websites properly cite and link back to my profile as explicitly stated in my profile.  I don't charge for photos, and I offer full resolution images.

 

What really bothers me though is how easily flickr allows random websites to search and cache images.  Essentially, sites are generating large databases of images from sites like flickr and storing them on THEIR servers.  Technically, they are violating my license for noncommercial use since they generate revenue from advertising, and search results are their product.  What's worse is there is nothing I can do to remove the image from their site.

 

As much as I hate to do it, i've closed my profile from public views and made the images non-downloadable.  I miss the old days of flickr.

There is something you can do to have the image removed from their site, you can send them a DMCA takedown letter.

 

More info here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA and http://www.learnaboutlaw.com/General/learnaboutDMCA.htm

 

And here is a sample takedown notice - http://www.learnaboutlaw.com/documents/DMCA_notice.htm

 

And if those don't work, you can always sue.  Lawsuits suck (and I say this as a law student) but sometimes ya gotta do what ya gotta do.

 

BTW, standard disclaimer here - I am not a lawyer (YET)

"What's worse is there is nothing I can do to remove the image from their site."

 

You couldn't be any more wrong about that. I've done the following several times, with varying levels of success:

 

1. Send a firm but polite "cease and desist" email explaining that the images are yours and they are to be removed immediately.

 

2. If they fail to respond, or respond with apathy, explain to them that what they're doing is a violation of federal copyright laws. If prosecuted, in addition to paying damages, they could slapped with a hefty fine - oh, and violation of federal copyright laws is a FELONY offense.

 

3. If that fails, threaten to litigate unless they negotiate a favorable deal which includes removing the images from their site.

 

I have YET to not succeed when this has happened.

Hayward, I've been using your photos in my book that I'm writing ... are you saying that's not cool, bro?

I use Flickr, albeit in a private mode, but it seems that on any photo sharing site where the pictures are open to the public a member is going to face this problem. Sounds like there are some people on here with experience in that regard.

 

Out of curiosity, is there any kind of HTML , Java or other code that can be inserted to prevent downloads of pictures, either by the host or by the user? How does UO deal with this (or do you?)

Is there a way to find out on what website your photos are posted?

Again, I AM NOT A LAWYER, but I HAVE studied copyright law extensively (don't ask me how extensive, its PAINFUL extensive)

 

As a very introductory threshold issue, it will make a difference if all the alleged infringing site is doing is LINKING to the image in an image tag (in other words, the image is served off of flickr's image farm).  This could well kill a civil copyright infringement claim (see the cases on google images).  In any case, it makes the case VERY difficult.  If they are actually copying the image to THEIR servers and serving the image bits off of their server, its a different story.  There is still alot of nuance here, and it will be very fact specific.

 

That said, some general information about some of the comments above.

 

If prosecuted, in addition to paying damages, they could slapped with a hefty fine - oh, and violation of federal copyright laws is a FELONY offense.

First, just to correct some general misconceptions or possible misconceptions people may have from the above, there are two types of copyright infringement, criminal and civil.  Each type has different requisites for bringing an infringement case.  It is only a felony offense if it meets the requisites of the felony infringement statute.  One of the chief requirements of criminal infringement is that a profit must be made off of the infringement, and in the broadest terms, there has to be some direct nexus between the infringement and a profit that is made.  The clearest cut case is the sale of bootleg software, movies, or music.  Most often, another requisite is that you have a federal copyright registration for the work, which is easy enough to obtain, but requires that you pay a fee, and possibly send copies of the work to the copryight office.  This is not to say that you don't have a copyright until you register, copyright rights attach at the moment the work is fixed in a tangible medium of expression, but this will likely be evidence required for the prosecution of a criminal copyright infringement case (more on why it is necessary in civil infringement in a moment).  There are other possible hurdles to a criminal infringement case as well, such things as the posting of notice of copyright as well as the penalties for infringement, etc.  Not enough space here to fully explore all of those.  The final, and largely the biggest hurdle in a case like this, is that a federal prosecutor will need to be convinced to bring the case.  This means filing a complaint with the FBI, and the FBI referring the case to the prosecutor.  In large scale bootleg operations, this is an easy case to bring to the FBI.  In this case, well its much more individualized, and the monetary harm is harder to quantify.

 

If that fails, threaten to litigate unless they negotiate a favorable deal which includes removing the images from their site.

 

This gets to the question of CIVIL (not criminal) litigation of copyright infringement.  As a threshold issue, be very very careful about making any such "threats."  What you state in these types of letters can EASILY come back to bite you.  Firstly, if you threaten criminal sanctions, you have to be careful that you have the wherewithal to back it up (see above).  If you aren't sure, well think about it... The most common example one of these letters coming back to bite you is if you "threaten" to sue, but then never do.  In this case, if you wait a long enough time you may be precluded from bringing suit.  If you are "threatening" to bring suit, you should really think carefully about what you say and assess whether you are the one best equipped to be doing what you are doing. 

 

To actually bring suit, there are many of the same requisites as above if you want to get damages, and not just an injunction.  Again, its too small a space here to really clarify it, but damages are rare, lets just put it that way.  Also, you will absolutely have to have a copyright registration before actually bringing suit, its a requirement of the statute.

 

That said, the good news is, that if all you want is for them to remove the infringing content from their site, you have another option under the statute, specifically, under the DMCA.  The DMCA has been a fairly controversial statute, but it has some arguably decent provisions, not the least of which are the takedown provisions (for copyright holders).  See my post above for the sample takedown letter.  The good news about this statute is their is a STATUTORY period of response, where the site owner HAS to remove the content.  The burden on the site to inspect is quite minimal.  Its the "easy" way to get infringing material removed.  Also, notice that the letter above never threatens to sue, it just says see this statute, see this material on your site, take it down. 

 

Out of curiosity, is there any kind of HTML , Java or other code that can be inserted to prevent downloads of pictures, either by the host or by the user? How does UO deal with this (or do you?)

I am currently a software engineer, in law school, so I can answer this too.  Yes there are many ways, google robots.txt to start, then move on the other possibilities.  One way is to only serve images through javascript (ie, no direct links).  Most spider software doesn't have a built in javascript interpreter, and consequently the images won't download.  You can also google for all kinds of sample javascript to do this (this of course all presumes you host your own images in your own content controlled site)  Google is your friend, all kinds of sample code to be found.

 

Is there a way to find out on what website your photos are posted?

If they are merely linking to your images (as described above), then yes.  You can can use google to find all sites that link to a specific url.  If they are copying the images, well it becomes much harder.

 

I should have clarified - I've only contacted people who have copied my images, not linked to them. That said - as a photographer and artist, I've also studied copyright law extensively and I'm very aware of all the nuances and especially the rigamarole necessary to file suit. In a few cases, I took a screencap of the offending piece (usually an ad) and my image, then pointed out in painstaking detail where/why the image is obviously mine (cloud patterns, lights on/off buildings, etc.). It becomes painfully obvious to the perp that I have them by the b@lls and they'd have a hard time proving their innocence. I'm happy to say that I've never had to resort to litigation - but if some idiot had the gall to blow me off AFTER I've presented my case, you'd better believe I'd go after them. 

 

As far as being the best equipped, of course I'm not - that's why I've made friends with more than one attorney who is well-versed in copyright/intellectual property laws and are more than happy to help me out. :-)

^ Indeed, I just had to clarify a few of the statements above (not really implying that they were false, just not quite "the rest of the story") :)

 

Also wanted to throw out a few warnings and gotchas for the "non initiated"...  "Be careful out there folks, its a wild wild world"

 

Also, seriously keep in mind the DMCA takedown - its the easiest, fastest, and most effective way to get your images down when they are direct copies (while limiting your own downsides).  If they've bene manipulated (or incorporated into another work, well then you still have to make your case as you say above).

^Sorry, a takedown is nice and all but I'm a Taurus and when I've been wronged, someone's gonna suffer.

 

 

;-)

Ahh, but if suffering is what you want, look at what happens if they ignore it :)

Thanks for the help everyone.  I honestly have no interest in taking any serious measures.  It mostly just annoys me.  I have no problem with people blogging them linking them to their websites (with at least permission) or using them for nonprofit sites and publications, but here's one example that annoys me..  I've got a section of photos of all the stuff I've done in college.  My friends value this section but they don't have flickr accounts so I don't make it private.  What is interesting is that one of my friends has the same name of an actor, so all these actor databases are finding the images, tagging it to that actor and putting it up on their site (except its my friend, not the actor!).  I don't actually tag these photos, so they must find them through word searches in the title.  It's not a huge deal, but I don't know what my friends might think.  I may just have to email them photos if they want full res I guess.

haywood, something else you can do is to get your good stuff up on a stock photo service. they have rights and clearances law teams that will take care of all that. you get paid based upon the use of your image and the size/reach of the ad it goes in.

 

my spouse worked at getty, they are the biggest one. corbis would be next and it goes down from there. there are tons of stock photo agencies, some good, some bad. the bigger ones have services for both pro photographers and non-pros:

 

http://www.gettyimages.com/Home.aspx

 

http://pro.corbis.com/

 

 

 

 

I have a flickr, it just has pics of my neighborhood. I'm too lazy to upload all of my pics but if someone used them, I wouldn't care; it would actually be flattering considering how much I suck at photography. I know I would care if I did it professionally to make money. The information age has made it hard to track that sort of thing down, if it does happen. On the bright side, it  does expose your work to potential buyers who are willing to pay for high-res. Though I'm not sure exactly how effective it is in doing that.

haywood, something else you can do is to get your good stuff up on a stock photo service. they have rights and clearances law teams that will take care of all that. you get paid based upon the use of your image and the size/reach of the ad it goes in.

 

my spouse worked at getty, they are the biggest one. corbis would be next and it goes down from there. there are tons of stock photo agencies, some good, some bad. the bigger ones have services for both pro photographers and non-pros:

 

http://www.gettyimages.com/Home.aspx

 

http://pro.corbis.com/

 

 

 

 

 

I love Getty. Wireimage is another good one!