# Photos posted on Cyclechat being used elsewhere



## simon.r (16 Oct 2017)

This is an observation rather than a moan:

A few photos I posted on here have appeared on an eBay advert. The photos showed a rack I’d fitted to a Brompton and were being used to illustrate how the product looked when fitted. The photos have only been posted on this forum. The eBay seller isn’t the seller I bought the rack from.

I emailed him to query it and he replied that he’d found the images on Google photos.

I don’t have an issue with this and the seller was very reasonable in his response (retrospectively asking if it was OK if he used the photos).

Is there a site policy on this issue?

Post on here: https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/ace-rack-and-wheels-for-brompton.224133/

eBay advert: https://www.ebay.co.uk/i/263262650847


----------



## User33236 (16 Oct 2017)

He's a business seller. Tell him no and send him an invoice for using it without permission. Almost certainly wont get you anywhere but may put him off ripping of other folks photos in future


----------



## mjr (16 Oct 2017)

It does look like the site copyright terms have gone AWOL.


----------



## raleighnut (16 Oct 2017)

If you post photographs on an open forum then of course they can be copied, much like we copy photographs (and videos) onto this site.


----------



## mjr (16 Oct 2017)

raleighnut said:


> If you post photographs on an open forum then of course they can be copied, much like we copy photographs (and videos) onto this site.


Technically, they can. However, legally they must not be, except for certain exempt purposes (such as caching).


----------



## steveindenmark (17 Oct 2017)

I cannot see the problem in this instance. But there could be instances where you dont want other people publishing your photos. Is there a way we can stop it?


----------



## User33236 (17 Oct 2017)

steveindenmark said:


> I cannot see the problem in this instance. But there could be instances where you dont want other people publishing your photos. Is there a way we can stop it?


No problem? The bloke is operating a business and using an image belonging to the OP. If he wants to use it then he should pay for the privilege. I’m sure sites like Alamy wouldn’t hold back in hitting him with an invoice if he nabbed one from them.

To answer the second part:

Short answer no.

Long answer. No but can cut down / eliminate it by making any photos you upload undesirable by using low res, heavily watermarked images.


----------



## smutchin (17 Oct 2017)

steveindenmark said:


> Is there a way we can stop it?



Report it to ebay. It's a simple case of misrepresentation - the seller is using an image of someone else's item, not the one he is selling. A common trick used by ebay scammers who often don't even have an item to sell.

Doesn't matter if the seller is legit, this is not a legit use of the image. This is all made pretty clear in the ebay seller's terms and conditions.


----------



## jefmcg (17 Oct 2017)

Now when we link to a photo on the web, CC makes a copy of it and stores it locally. As far as I can tell, once the copy is made it's impossible to identify where the image came from.

So if CC is not respecting other websites' copyright, I don't see how they could take a stand on others doing the same.

And from a practical point of view, if someone can see your image they can take it. You can make it look nasty as @User33236 suggests, but please don't do that 

A tip if you are sharing a photo you think might have intrinsic value (eg of a news event), you should crop it a bit, even if it's not necessary. Having the complete image that no one else has would help you prove ownership.


----------



## smutchin (17 Oct 2017)

Here's ebay's images policy: http://pages.ebay.co.uk/help/policies/image-text.html

And the relevant bit:






It's entirely up to you if you give him permission, but personally I think it's potentially misleading for buyers so would probably refuse if it were my images.

If you had previously offered this item for sale on ebay and used those pictures in the listing, it's possible that ebay would have added the images to its own product catalogue, and other sellers would thus be allowed to use them, but I take it that's not the case in this instance.


----------



## Milkfloat (17 Oct 2017)

When people direct linked to my photos on ebay and I found out, I edit my picture to something rude. This thread has given me the idea to switch to a similar but far more expensive item so the seller can get screwed by ebay for miss-selling.


----------



## Crackle (17 Oct 2017)

Someone did the same thing from an advert on here. I put a saddle up for sale which someone bought, obviously didn't get on with and flogged it on road.cc with my images and for a fiver more! Cheeky git.


----------



## classic33 (17 Oct 2017)

There was a picture of a stolen trike, used on here, when it was being sold.


----------



## mjr (17 Oct 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> @smutchin did you have permission to use that image from ebay?


"Copyright in a work is not infringed by the use of a quotation from the work (whether for criticism or review or otherwise) provided that (a)the work has been made available to the public, (b)the use of the quotation is fair dealing with the work, (c)the extent of the quotation is no more than is required by the specific purpose for which it is used, and (d)the quotation is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement (unless this would be impossible for reasons of practicality or otherwise)." http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/30


----------



## smutchin (17 Oct 2017)

Most relevant is point (d) - I made it clear that it was a quotation; I wasn't passing off someone else's work as my own.

But a good gag by @Dogtrousers none the less.


----------



## mjr (17 Oct 2017)

jefmcg said:


> Now when we link to a photo on the web, CC makes a copy of it and stores it locally. As far as I can tell, once the copy is made it's impossible to identify where the image came from.
> 
> So if CC is not respecting other websites' copyright, I don't see how they could take a stand on others doing the same.


Copyright ain't fair. CC's ability to enforce any copyright it has would not require its own hands being clean, although it makes CC vulnerable to other people pursuing it. I wish CC would acknowledge/link the sources for the images it has copied, in line with the legal requirement for commentary, as I feel it would simplify the most common cases of linking an img (that it's either commentary on it or that it's using an image with permission, both of which usually require the source to be acknowledged).

Also, in this case, the poster holds copyright too and they're not to blame for what CC may do. As far as I can tell, at no point has anyone told the ebay seller that they have permission to reproduce (fnarr) and so the law says they don't and the poster of the image can require them to stop, plus it seems ebay's terms also require them to stop. It's pretty much open and shut.


----------



## User33236 (17 Oct 2017)

jefmcg said:


> You can make it look nasty as @User33236 suggests, but please don't do that .


I certainly don’t advocate that myself but I know a number of amateur photographers that do. 

Personally I don’t post my better images on open sites.


----------



## mjr (17 Oct 2017)

smutchin said:


> Most relevant is point (d) - I made it clear that it was a quotation; I wasn't passing off someone else's work as my own.


And you satisfied a, b and c, in my opinion.



smutchin said:


> But a good gag by @Dogtrousers none the less.


I thought it was a rare bum note from D, rather predictable because whenever copyright infringement is discussed, there's always some whining that someone-or-other shouldn't comment because they infringe copyright too, often based on some misunderstanding of what's permitted.


----------



## smutchin (17 Oct 2017)

I think you're taking his post a wee bit too seriously!


----------



## smutchin (17 Oct 2017)

Seriously? 

In that case, here's a bit more context:






See also: https://lifehacker.com/193343/ask-the-law-geek--is-publishing-screenshots-fair-use


----------



## mjr (17 Oct 2017)

smutchin said:


> I think you're taking his post a wee bit too seriously!


I was taking it as a joke, but not a funny one because it's too similar to what some people post seriously to this sort of discussion.


----------



## steveindenmark (17 Oct 2017)

User33236 said:


> No problem? The bloke is operating a business and using an image belonging to the OP. If he wants to use it then he should pay for the privilege. I’m sure sites like Alamy wouldn’t hold back in hitting him with an invoice if he nabbed one from them.
> 
> To answer the second part:
> 
> ...


The OP cannot see a problem with it either.

The seller is not saying it is the item, but how it will look. The OP could do as you suggest and invoice the seller. But it could be a long drawn out and expensive process of the seller refuses to pay.


----------



## User33236 (17 Oct 2017)

steveindenmark said:


> The OP cannot see a problem with it either.
> 
> The seller is not saying it is the item, but how it will look. The OP could do as you suggest and invoice the seller. But it could be a long drawn out and expensive process of the seller refuses to pay.


I certainly wouldn't expect the seller to stump up willingly, nor would I go to the expense or time of chasing it. I as much said that earlier up thread. But what an invoice would do is possibly prevent him doing the same again for fear of someone deciding to enforce an invoice next time round.

I know several individuals who have chased it through the small claims court and won.


----------



## simon.r (17 Oct 2017)

I really don’t see a problem. 

Maybe if a large company was using my photos, or if I was a professional photographer it’d be different, but the seller looks to me like an individual who’s making a few quid by importing and selling bike bits on at a small profit. 

He replied to my email quickly, apologised and was polite. 

I can see that technically he’s breaking ebay’s rules, but it’s not hurting me in any way.


----------



## User33236 (17 Oct 2017)

simon.r said:


> I really don’t see a problem.
> 
> Maybe if a large company was using my photos, or if I was a professional photographer it’d be different, but the seller looks to me like an individual who’s making a few quid by importing and selling bike bits on at a small profit.
> 
> ...


It may not be hurting you but the problem is that because individuals feel like they can use photos freely and unchallenged then they continue to do so as do many many other people. The next thing you know pros and semi-pros get their images nicked too costing them money.

You only have to look at FB to see heavily watermarked images people have found on sites like marathonphotos, and didn't want to pay for it, that they use as a profile picture.

I implore everyone who takes photos to vigorously defend their copyright of that image as its the only way to fight back and begin to break that atitiude.


----------



## simon.r (17 Oct 2017)

User33236 said:


> It may not be hurting you but the problem is that because individuals feel like they can use photos freely and unchallenged then they continue to do so as do many many other people. The next thing you know pros and semi-pros get their images nicked too costing them money.
> 
> You only have to look at FB to see heavily watermarked images people have found on sites like marathonphotos, and didn't want to pay for it, that they use as a profile picture.
> 
> I implore everyone who takes photos to vigorously defend their copyright of that image as its the only way to fight back and begin to break that atitiude.



I can’t help thinking that’s a battle that’s inevitably going to be lost, much like the music industry has lost the battle against people illegally downloading and sharing music. 

What the answer is I don’t know.


----------



## User33236 (17 Oct 2017)

simon.r said:


> *I can’t help thinking that’s a battle that’s inevitably going to be lost,* much like the music industry has lost the battle against people illegally downloading and sharing music.
> 
> What the answer is I don’t know.


Well it will will that defeatist attitude


----------



## Shaun (17 Oct 2017)

mjr said:


> It does look like the site copyright terms *have gone AWOL.*


No they haven't. Bottom of this page: https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/guidelines.213512/


> You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by this site.





jefmcg said:


> Now when we link to a photo on the web, CC makes a copy of it and stores it locally. *As far as I can tell, once the copy is made it's impossible to identify where the image came from.* So if CC is not respecting other websites' copyright, I don't see how they could take a stand on others doing the same.


A record is kept of the origin URL when it is converted and stored on CC. Should we receive a take-down request which corresponds with the author's site and origin URL we will honour the removal immediately.

As to copying in general - whilst people _should _respect your copyright and _not_ use your images without permission, when you post them on public websites you make them available for people to copy and they do. I appreciate "everyone does it" is not an excuse, but ... everyone does it these days without thinking about it, and your images will be no different.

With that in mind, keep your absolute best photos to yourself and don't post them online. If you must, post them at such a small size or low quality that they would be of little or no practical use for anyone copying them. Alternatively consider adding a watermark or prominent copyright notice in an area of the image that it would be difficult to crop without ruining the "shot" for the person wanting to use it.

Unfortunately there isn't much CC can do for images you have uploaded here on threads that are public, but if you'd like to restrict viewing to members only you should upload them to the Media Gallery where you can limit who can view them. 

Cheers,
Shaun


----------



## mjr (17 Oct 2017)

Is that really all the copyright terms? So we're not allowed to post images that we have permission for (including creative commons)? So we're not allowed to post excerpts for commentary? And we're not required to give CC permission to do anything with the images we upload?


----------



## Shut Up Legs (18 Oct 2017)

Shaun said:


> you should upload them to the Media Gallery where you can limit who can view them.
> 
> Cheers,
> Shaun


How do we restrict access to images in the media gallery, or to albums? I couldn't find any controls to do this.


----------



## swansonj (18 Oct 2017)

Shaun said:


> No they haven't. Bottom of this page: https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/guidelines.213512/
> 
> 
> A record is kept of the origin URL when it is converted and stored on CC. Should we receive a take-down request which corresponds with the author's site and origin URL we will honour the removal immediately.
> ...


Out of interest, how often do you get take-down requests? Is this yet another of the hidden burdens of running this site that most of us don't appreciate?


----------



## Shaun (18 Oct 2017)

mjr said:


> Is that really all the copyright terms? So we're not allowed to post images that we have permission for (including creative commons)? So we're not allowed to post excerpts for commentary? And we're not required to give CC permission to do anything with the images we upload?


I've updated it to include images that you have permission to use: 


> *You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless you have permission from the author or the copyright is owned by you or by this site.*





Shut Up Legs said:


> How do we restrict access to images in the media gallery, or to albums? I couldn't find any controls to do this.


It's in the album settings on the right hand side - should say *Change Permissions* at the bottom of the permissions box:


----------



## Shaun (18 Oct 2017)

swansonj said:


> Out of interest, how often do you get take-down requests? Is this yet another of the hidden burdens of running this site that most of us don't appreciate?


Thankfully, not very often, and all of them (so far) to the owner's satisfaction.


----------

