Well it was bound to happen again and it did. A for-profit business used one of my photos without my permission and without attribution. Last time it was a local newspaper, this time it’s a local restaurant–and one that I wasn’t too kind to in my review. In the end it will be treated the same by me with an invoice being sent and an expectation of payment.
As you can see from the photo above, which is a screenshot of the photo being used on Pardon My French’s Facebook fan page, they have used a photo which I took when I reviewed the restaurant back in October of 2008. While this is all well and good, it’s still against Facebook’s TOS (I have followed up with Facebook to have the infringing image removed from their website and the image has been removed) and it’s in violation of my copyright and the Creative Commons licensing terms with which the photo is tagged.
While this is a slightly different than what happened the first time around (I’m less certain about a locally owned restaurant’s knowledge of copyright than say a newspaper), it is still going to end up going the same route. I am bound to vigorously protect my copyright. Maybe they should start teaching this sort of shit in business classes or add it to the paperwork required when you file as a business entity in the State of Minnesota. Then no one could play the ignorance card.
What do you think about this particular copyright violation? Do you think that it’s a different animal all together from when it occurred the first time? Do you think that Facebook should have an easier process to remove offending photos than requiring the copyright owner to fill out a complex form requiring personal information? Whatever you think about Pardon My French using my photography without my permission and without attribution go ahead and comment on as I’d love to hear what you have to say!
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
December 4th, 2009 at 7:53 am
Usually I just send a note explaining how they’ve violated the Creative Commons license on the photo with enclosed proof/screenshots and enclose an invoice. Also make sure you’re sending it to the right person there — e.g. owner.
December 4th, 2009 at 8:01 am
I don’t think it should be too easy to have something removed for a copyright violation. Otherwise, you’d have people, basically, writing bots to remove photos from reviews they don’t like, or just to pester people they don’t like.
Yes it sucks, but I do think some of the onus needs to be on the copyright owner to prove they are the owner.
December 4th, 2009 at 8:30 am
On the bright side, you know they read your site and have read your review!
December 4th, 2009 at 8:34 am
I saw a photo of mine used by a for-profit newspaper, but published this particular edition tailored for a non-profit group. While I don’t plan to send them a bill for this use, I did contact their ad department and request the name of the person that provided this photo to them (because the person that I provide photos to for the non-profit group is aware of my CC attribution requirement)
All in all, it’s someone trying to get something for nothing in Bill’s case, and it’s not right. In my case, I’m not going to get too bent and harm the relationship with the non-profit group, but it would be nice to have proper credit.
My plan is to start watermarking every photo I post starting January 1, 2010, and then working to watermark all 10,000+ photos on my gallery.
I have yet to hear back from the paper, and my Email was sent on Sunday afternoon. If they do not reply after my second email. My third email will state that a non-response will result in an invoice being sent.
December 4th, 2009 at 8:39 am
w00dz, try calling them too.
December 4th, 2009 at 8:40 am
Chad, congrats on 700 posts. You’re the #1 commenter on the site. They probably just found it on Flickr and used it from there. I don’t know if they read the review itself or not.
December 4th, 2009 at 8:54 am
You’ve always told me I was your #1, Bill. Anyway…I hope you’ll begin your letter with “Pardon my invoice…”
December 4th, 2009 at 8:55 am
MSPD, you were until Chad started being cooler than you ;-)
December 4th, 2009 at 9:10 am
Impossible.
December 4th, 2009 at 9:28 am
Even if (and when) they pay your invoice amount, they should be held responsible for a transgression like this. Is there a legal recourse to make them pay for stealing in the first place (in addition to reimbursement)?
December 4th, 2009 at 9:30 am
Yeah, I could take them to court and enforce my copyright. Unfortunately because it’s not a registered copyright I would have to pay for the lawyer and damages would be minimal if anything aside from the cost of the invoice.
Honestly, while it would be worth it in some instances (like if they were making millions on my work) it’s not in this case.
December 4th, 2009 at 10:39 am
Sadly, people ripping off photos like that is the price of the current web culture. With a quick search people can find any image they want and post it anywhere they wish. I fight that crap every day and far too many people see the value of a quality photograph – in the end the endless theft continually devalues anything creative in nature: graphic design, photography, etc.
December 4th, 2009 at 11:40 am
[...] at Preston’s on Cedar Ave., eloquent praise for The Craftsman on Chowhound, and Bill Roehl goes after Pardon My French for copyright violation. var addthis_pub = "heavytable"; var addthis_options = 'favorites, digg, [...]
December 4th, 2009 at 11:55 am
I think you should follow this advice – watermark with something along the lines of “Copyright protected, use of photo constitues agreement to pay $____ for use of photo.”
December 4th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
it’s just fucking lazy of them. like they can’t get their own camera out and take the same picture in about 30 seconds?
December 4th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
That’s too bad, Bill. I strongly believe that if they wanted to use your photo, all they had to do was ask and give credit where credit is due. Luckily it’s a local business and you should be able to resolve this quickly.
It’s happened to me twice. I’ve pursued it and received no response from the offenders. If I had an extra $500 to spare, I’d lawyer up and get them to remove it, but since I don’t have that $500, I’ve resorted to watermarking my images.
December 4th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
When uploading photos to Facebook, you have to check a box that reads:
“I certify that I have the right to distribute these photos and that they do not violate the Terms of Use.”
Anyone in business should have a basic understanding of copyright law.
December 4th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
MSPD, there’s always someone cooler than you. (reference? Anyone?)
I wonder if they even have to $300, do people go there?
December 4th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Dave, I think anyone w/common sense should think to themselves, “Is it right to take someone else’s property and put it on my website as a marketing gimmick?”
DMH, they have over 300 fans on Facebook, I would guess some people do. All they need is $1 from each of those people that have likely seen my photo to pay for it.
December 7th, 2009 at 7:38 am
dawnmarie – Ben Folds? (It is one of my ring tones)
December 8th, 2009 at 7:43 am
Bill – The paper never responded to me, but the person that provided the photo did, and was very adamant that is was her photo, even when I told her I have the original, unedited photo. I have yet to hear back from her since sending her the link.
In the end, I’m not pushing it with this item, however, I have made a very open notation on my photo gallery, ensured all my Flickr photos are tagged accordingly, and placed a photo release statement on my personal domain, which lists the usage and pricing for violation. In addition to the watermark coming soon, there shall be no cases of “I didn’t know”.
People that take others creative work suck. Those that do so, do not admit it, or credit it as their own work deserve….. something bad.
December 10th, 2009 at 10:12 am
how do you think you have the right to a picture you say you took inside somone else’s buisness – did you get permission before you took the poicture, did you get their permission to post photo’s from their buisness on your website. you have like eight different pictures from inside their buisness on your website, have they sent you a bill for the unauthorized use of their intellectual property? they should! furthermore, i googled pardon my french + images and was able to access all the images without even leavin google, so to blatently accuse them of of stealing an immage from your website of their own intellectual property is rediculous. You have been blasting them since the day they opened, and i have been frequenting their place of buisness over the past year and have never been dissapointed. With their “Spacious Interior” and delicious food how can anyone not enjoy a visit to Pardon My French.
December 10th, 2009 at 10:22 am
Steve,
Thanks for the comment.
1. They were free to ask me to remove my photos. They chose not to. Instead they decided that my photography was worthy enough to use in their marketing materials on Facebook. If it was worthy of that then it was worthy of payment. I’m sorry that you don’t understand this.
2. The Google thing. I don’t see your point. Photography is copyrighted by default. In addition to my default copyright I also add Creative Commons licensing which allows non-profits to use my photography (which they can find on the web) free of charge as long as they provide a by line crediting me.
I realize that it’s a difficult thing for people to understand but regardless I am in the right and they owe me the money I charge. If they’d like me to take it down after payment is received, it’s their loss.
December 10th, 2009 at 10:27 am
Oh and as for blasting them since the day they opened–well, my opinion is just as valid as yours. Thanks for sharing it.
December 10th, 2009 at 10:31 am
i understand what you may think, but you were also free to ask them to give you credit for the picture or to take it down. did you do this???? Also that doesnt explain why you think you have the right to images of their intelectual property. just because you took the photo doesnt make it your property. expecially if you didn’t have written consent. saying they stole it is assinign.
December 10th, 2009 at 10:34 am
Steve, you’re right, it’s not stealing. It’s copyright infringement. I am not going to argue this with you any further. I took the photos, they used them in a commercial setting without my consent and thus they owe me the money. It’s as simple as that.
December 10th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Try thinking of it in a different light. You go to an amusement park, you take photos of your family in the park, on their rides. You post them to flickr with the protections Bill mentions above.
Amusement park takes your photo and uses it for their brochure. Do they owe you money for doing so? Yup.
The amusement park could tell you that you need to take your photos down but what they can’t do is take the photo and use it for themselves. It isn’t their photo to take.
December 10th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
You are having a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
December 10th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Well ignorance is not an excuse for breaking the law. If they used the picture without your permission, then they have committed copyright infringement. It’s really not that hard of a concept to understand. Technically you don’t have to state copyright, it should be assumed. If they didn’t like the picture you posted on your blog for whatever reason, they could have asked you to remove it. If you choose to ignore the request, technically they could civilly sue you to remove it (I am not sure if they would win because it’s a restaurant, but it’s a private business?). I would think that a business would have at least a small amount of common sense not to go out to the web and nab a picture taken by someone else of their business without permission. Maybe they need to have a short business law/marketing class in culinary school? Bill, is doing nothing wrong in asking for payment on a picture that is he took and used on his blog posting on a business. They will lose will they argue fair use. In school my professors would also be very staunch on citing references. If you didn’t write it, and are using it as a reference in a paper you better make sure you cite to the original work. I personally like Pardon My French. Every time I have been there, I have had a good experience. Just because Bill doesn’t frequent the restaurant, and wrote a unflattering review doesn’t mean they can unlawfully use his picture of the place.
December 10th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Steve Miller,
Misspelling ‘asinine’ and ‘ridiculous’ makes you look like a jackass. Also hilarious, misspelling ‘intellectual.’ Nicely done. There are more but my eyes are tired.
Also, loved you in concert.
December 10th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
There really are a lot of bad spellers out there. Maybe we should start a thread about what’s wrong with education. Dawnmarie probably has some insight here, having been in the trenches.
December 11th, 2009 at 8:44 am
Heh! I love it when people like Mr. Miller start throwing around terms like “intellectual property” when it is obvious they have no idea what it means.
December 11th, 2009 at 8:48 am
I had Facebook take it down for them. Giving me credit would not have solved the problem unless they were a non-profit (which they aren’t). If they were a non-profit then I would have went that route–like I have countless other times.
Again Steve, thanks for your comments. It shows just how uninformed the general public (and business owners) are when it comes to copyright infringement.
December 11th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
To be fair, nobody knows everything. I think the difference between ignorance and stupidity is this: When you are ignorant about something, you just don’t have the information; when you are stupid, you have refused to try to learn it.
People should be given the benefit of the doubt when they are ignorant about something:)
December 11th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
If people don’t understand that they need to be careful about intellectual property rights these days, then the qualify as stupid. Napster in 1999 brought into the mind of the general public more than they ever wanted to know about the issues around intellectual property rights. People may not know exactly what they should or shouldn’t do, but they should certainly be aware that they need to look into things before taking just anything off the internet and using it for commercial purposes.
December 28th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Hold the phone a second, Bill. I agree that a newspaper should never publish one of your photos without some form of attribution or discussion beforehand. A newspaper is a business, money changes hands, a profit is made from that photo, it’s your photo, etc.
But Facebook? Facebook is free. Photos are flying all over the place on Facebook. And whenever you post a pic on Facebook, you do so with the knowledge (fully explained in the company’s how-to manual or terms of service) that your designated “friends” can hit a button called “share” and redistribute that photo to their own friends. This is also free, and no one makes a direct profit from said photo’s distribution.
I’m not sure if you “friended” this restaurant or not, nor have I eaten there. Nor have I read any positive reviews about it, so whatever gripe you have with said restaurant, I’ll respect your culinary review on a gastrointestinal level. But claiming some kind of copyright infringement for contributing an image to a social networking site — and then getting huffy when said image is networked socially — seems a little extreme.
Ask the restaurant to give you a credit tag (i.e. your name on the photo). An invoice for an image that you made readily available to the world and is not making anyone any money is too much…
December 28th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
MFM, I didn’t put the picture on Facebook–they did–thus, I’m not quite sure what your point is.