Companies That Steal My Photos

The Gwinnett Convention and Visitors Bureau is an organisation based in Georgia, USA and offers information about hotels, restaurants and attractions in Gwinnett County.

One section of the site features sports bars in the area and to illustrate it they used my photo of many beer taps in a Taco Mac in Decatur, GA (which is actually in DeKalb County, not Gwinnett County).

The photo was taken back in September 2009 when I was touring the area so I'm not sure how long it has been on the Gwinnett website.

I have contacted them informing them that I will be seeking compensation and I am awaiting a reply.

Update (09-11-11): I received a prompt response agreeing to pay the normal rate that they would pay a photographer to supply a photograph.

Resolved

A search on Google Images for copyright infringements not only revealed Global Grasshopper and the New York Observer but also London Cocktail Week.

To promote London Cocktail Week and in particular their Cocktail Tours (in association with the Nicholson Group), they used a photo of the bar in the Old Bell Tavern on Fleet Street in London. The photo had been cropped for the site but it was instantly recognisable to me as a photo I had taken. The original can be found on Beer Lens.

I contacted the company behind the site, Difford's Guide (Odd Firm of Sin), to inform them of the infringment and making them aware that I would be seeking compensation and this was their response.

Robert, 
Thanks for your email. 
I understand exactly how frustrating this is as we too own a great deal of our own photography and see it pop up all over the place, usually uncredited. 
I’m afraid, however, that the owners of the ‘Old Bell Tavern’ - The Nicholson Group created a partnership between our site and 44 of their venues across London as part of London Cocktail Week 2011 and to promote this - gave us access to images from their website. We used these images in good faith that they had the rights to pass them on. My sincere apologies if this was not the case. 
Our website will be coming down in the next few weeks and I will be certain to make sure that when it is repopulated next year that those passing the images on to us have the right to do so. 
With very kindest regards,
Hannah

This is a common response I receive where blame is shifted to another party and if they apologise, everything will be ok. 

The respondent claims that the Nicholson Group gave access to use images from their website. The official Old Bell Tavern website consists of an exterior shot and stock pub interior shots and they clearly haven't used my shot. Obviously I don't know if the Nicholson Group have taken the shot from Beer Lens and added it to an archive available for people to download so I have requested to see proof that they provided the image.

I'm not convinced that Nicholson's have provided the images as the shot for the El Camion bar appears to have been taken from Fluid London.

Also, the respondent hasn't offered to remove the photographs expect when the site is taken down 'in the next few weeks'.

After receiving the email I decided to see if any other photographs had been used and found one of De Hems that I had taken. Again, this shot doesn't appear on the official De Hems website. In fact, there isn't a single shot of the pub on the website, only stock photos. The photograph originally appeared on Travels with Beer.

I can tell from the dates on each photograph that they were created in August, 2011 and the event was held in October, 2011 so it's safe to say that they have been used on the website for a few months. 

As the site is a commercial venture with large companies sponsoring the event and a partnership with a large pub group, I will be seeking the appropriate compensation.

Unresolved

 

Global Grasshopper is a travel site that relies on freelancers to submit articles to the website and unfortunately, by doing so the site owners presume that either the author has taken the photograph or has been given permission to use the shot. This is what happened in the London Drinker case.

My shot of Ye Olde Chesire Cheese was used to illustrate an article called '10 of the Best Pubs In London for a Cheap Pint'. It was used without permission or attribution.

Luckily I make sure my information is added to the EXIF data of all my shots so it's easy to prove that the shot is mine.

The site has been contacted notifying them of the infringement and I will be seeking compensation from them.

Update 08/11/2011: Global Grasshopper has contacted me saying that a mistake was made and the photo had been submitted with the article. Its unfortunate that editors don't make relevant checks to see if authorisation has been given to use any of the photos and I wouldn't be surprised if in this case no questions at all were asked.

When the site promotes itself as being a well ranked travel blog and no doubt receives some money for advertising on the site, sometimes an apology and removing the photograph isn't enough.

Part Resolved

Google Images is an excellent, albeit laborious way of finding sites that may have used your photographs. I decided to search for one of my favourite and most popular images - a shot of a man drinking in the historical 17th century London pub, Ye Olde Cheshire Cheese.

During the search I discovered around 10 different sites using the photograph without permission and in many cases without attribution. Most were small personal blogs but two were commercial sites with one being the New York Observer. The post has been active for around a month and in that time I'm sure they have made some revenue from the advertising on that page.

The photo was used without permission and without any attribution and as such I have contacted the author of the article and am seeking compensation.

Update (08-11-11): The author of the article removed the photo within 15 minutes and has responded saying the matter is not being ignored.

Unresolved

Brian Stechshulte has already been featured on Companies That Steal My Photos and judging by his tweets, he encounters photography theft quite often.The latest company to steal one of his photos is Draft Magazine that have used one of his photos to illustrate an online article.

Draft magazine has since removed the photo and replaced it but they are not willing to pay Brian for the photo and are claiming 'fair use'. Why remove the photo if you think you're using it fairly? Because they don't want to pay for using the photo without authorisation.

Even though they have removed the photo from their website, it still remains on their Facbook page.

Brian has supplied me with the email conversation with Managing Editor Jessica Daynor who bizarrly claims that as a 'journalism organization' they are 'within our Fair Use rights to use the photo'

9:14am, Nov 4

Hi Brian,

Thanks so much for your note. As a journalism organization, we are within our Fair Use rights to use the photo (we also properly credited it), but we've replaced it at your request. Please feel free to be in touch if you have additional concerns. Thanks!

Best,

Jessica Daynor
Managing Editor | DRAFT Magazine
jessica.daynor@draftmag.com | 847.778.8552
300 W. Clarendon Ave. | Suite 155 | Phoenix, AZ | 85013

9:32am, Nov 4

Hi Brian,

I'm sorry you're disappointed, but as content producers and photographers ourselves, we take copyright infringement incredibly seriously, and violating anyone's rights (and breaking the law) is something we simply do not do. I see no grounds on which to further pursue the matter, but that's your choice. Feel free to call and discuss anytime.

Jessica Daynor
Managing Editor | DRAFT Magazine
jessica.daynor@draftmag.com | 847.778.8552
300 W. Clarendon Ave. | Suite 155 | Phoenix, AZ | 85013

Brian has already had to hide all of his Flickr images to try and reduce the number of photos stolen. If companies continue to steal photos then photographers like Brian will be forced to move offline and it'll be harder for us to enjoy his excellent photographs.

Update: This is the latest response from Draft Mag's managing editor.

10:56am, Nov 4

Hi Brian,

I've offered several apologies, and I truly am sorry that this has transpired. However, we have a nearly $0 editorial budget for the website (again, we're a news organization, and news organizations these days have extremely limited funds), so compensation is not a possibility. Handling this in the manner you did/are is your choice, but I hope you also value truth in journalism and publish our correspondence, too. At this point, any further contact between us will be moderated by DRAFT's legal team, for our protection and yours. Best of luck.

Unresolved

Whilst visiting a beer festival in my home town I noticed that the sheets identifying the beers available were illustrated with a photograph of a pub. I instantly recognised the photo as one that I had taken from 2010.

When I challenged the landlord he said that someone else had created the sheets and the person and simply searched for the pub on Google Images and selected mine.

Rather than simply going outside and taking his own photograph he thought, like many people do, that it's ok to take any photograph that's on Google and use it for their own purposes.

The landlord was apologetic and offered me a free pint. In this case that was the best remedy and I accepted the pint.

I learnt of Jürgen's case of photo theft whilst searching on Twitter. One of his photos taken at a Phish concert was used the MTV Clutch blog without his permission and he only discovered the theft after he was alerted to it on Friday.

The photo was originally posted on his Flickr account and was marked with a Creative Commons "Non-Commerical" License meaning that it cannot be used for commercial purposes such as posting on a company blog.

The author, Adam K. Raymond stole the photo along with 4 others from other photographers and posted without permission but with attribution.

Jürgen contacted MTV via email and on their contact us forum notifying them of theft but didn't receive a response. He also tweeted Raymond who since my initial contact with Jürgen has responded by removing the photo and replacing with a Getty image (which they would have paid for!) and saying that he "definitely misunderstood the details of CC".

He may have misunderstood the meaning of the CC license but surely he knows that you can't just take any photograph you find on Flickr and use it for your own purposes without either paying for it or asking for permission from the owner.

Unfortunately for Jürgen this is probably the end of the case but I would suggest that he presses them for compensation because if he, or any of the other photographers, hadn't noticed the post, it would still be there today. The fact that the photo was only on the blog for a few days is irrelevant.

If Jürgen doesn't get compensated for the theft, at least MTV has been named and shamed.

Unresolved

The London Drinker is a free bi-monthly publication that features the latest news about pubs and breweries across London. I'm a big fan of the publication and try to pick it up whenever I'm in London.

I noticed in the Oct/Nov issue that an article on the Wenlock Arms pub featured one of my photographs of the interior of the pub. The photo has only ever been posted on Beer Lens so the author of the article either got it from there or found it through Google Images. I was never contacted prior to using it nor was I credited.

Usually I would fire off an email straight away asking to be compensated for the use of the photograph but this case is different. It was used in an article asking people to object against the Wenlock being demolished and the publication is very small.

I still have emailed them but have asked how they want to sort it out.

October 10th

I have received an email from the London Drinker saying that hte article was submitted and they presumed that the photograph was either taken by the author or that they had been given permission to use it. A correction will be posted in the next issue.

In this instance I don't see any point in pursuing the case any further as they are hardly a large organisation and there was no intent on the part of the editors to deliberately use the photo without seeking permission. They also have stated that they will be more vigilent in the future in ensuring that the correct permission is sought.

Resolved

I found Mr Smith's (name changed) case whilst searching Twitter. An excellent photo he took of a bird had legally been used legally by many encyclopedias but whilst browsing some French photography blogs he came across an article about an electronics company that manufactures monitors and noticed that one of his photographs had been used to sell one more than one of their products.

Mr Smith was never contacted by the company and was never given any credit for the photograph. He contacted them and the photograph was removed but as other companies such as Amazon and B&H Photo sell their products, the photograph remains on their sites.

After two months of correspondence, haven't paid compensation for the image but have offered Mr Smith a free monitor which he has no need for. They also say that they take image theft very seriously.

Updates

October 4th

Mr Smith has contact me to inform me that the company has been in touch with him (prompted by this post?) and has offered him 500 euros. Based on the nature of the case and how far the photo has spreaded he has turned down that figure and requested 2000 euros. That figure has so far been refused.

Interestingly, the company said to Mr Smith- "Some outlet sold us an unauthorized photo! Not only were you not paid, but we paid money for this image."

October 4th

The Company have agreed to pay Mr Smith compensation of 750 euros which he has agreed to accept.

Resolved

Brian Stechshulte contacted Companies That Steal My Photos after a Google News Alert notified him that his name had appeared on a website. These alerts are a great way of monitoring what sites could be talking about you or posting your photos.

The notification led him to Novato Patch which provides news for Novato, CA. Patch also provides news sites for many other parts of the USA.

The news site had used Brian's photo of Novato homebrewer, Alan Atha which had been posted on Brian's Flickr account. The photo did contain an attribution but the photo on Flickr clearly is copyrighted so cannot be used without prior permission.

Brian next contacted Novato Patch:-

"In less then an hour the photo was removed and I received a response from Patch support that this had been done. Of course, their was no mention of my financial demand.

I responded telling them I would follow through on my threat in 72 hours if I did not get a response.

He's also mentioned them on Twitter at both of their accounts, @PatchTweet and @NovatoPatch, but neither have responded."

$50 is a reasonable request for use of the photo without permission even though the photo was only visible on the website for a short period of time.

Updates

October 24th: Brian has contacted me to say that he has received a genuine apology from the author of the article that used his photo but Patch.com are not budging regarding payment so unfortunately this case will remain unresolved.

Unresolved