copyright of website images

[websterbfc]

I have today found my website images, that are photographs taken by my friend Karen, have been taken and turned into a youtube film, which has in turn been posted on the youtube submitters website.

Each of the photos on the website clearly state that there is a copyright on them.

Karen has sent a message to the submitter saying if they would like permission to use them to contact us if not please remove. I have also checked out youtubes copyright policy. Is there anything else we can do? and how can we protect ourselves form this in future?

[Guest]

If I were you I shoud contact YouTube, explain the copyright breach and ask that they remove the submissions.

We had a similar problem with someone selling copies of one of our CDs (as well as those of other publishers) on eBay. As well as asking eBay to take action (which they did) we received help from the Trading Standards Department of the council where the person lived - the upshot was that he closed down.

Trading Standards may not be able to help in your case (as it is not a commercial matter) but I'm sure your local Citizen's Advice Bureau will be able to provide advice.

Graham

[Guest]

Whoops, forgot to say how to protect yourself in future. You could try including some Javascript to disable the right mouse click which allows people to Save Picture As....

Copy and paste the code below within the head section of your pages. It doesn't work on all browsers but does on most common ones.

Graham

<script language="JavaScript">
<!--
//script to protect images from theft
function click()
{if (event.button==2)
{
alert('All images are protected by Copyright.')
}
}document.onmousedown=click
// -->
</script>

<script language=JavaScript>
<!--
function clickIE() {if (document.all) {(message);return false;}}
function clickNS(e) {if (document.layers||(document.getElementById&&!document.all))
{if (e.which==2||e.which==3) {(message);return false;}}} if (document.layers)
{document.captureEvents(Event.MOUSEDOWN);document. onmousedown=clickNS;}
else{document.onmouseup=clickNS;document.oncontext menu=clickIE;}
document.oncontextmenu=new Function("return false")
// -->
</script>

[pipsqueak]

Another solution is to imprint the copyright on the photo - it mars the picture, somewhat but it's effective. The real question is why this person would want to make a Buckhurst Hill church slideshow and why they didn't go and take their own photos!

[Guy Etchells]

I know this is probably not what you wish to read but-
Does it really matter?

Yes I can understand being annoyed when someone copies an image you display on the web, but has it caused you or your friend any loss?

Why not take the other view and consider it a complement that someone has thought the images worth turning into a slideshow?

You or rather your friend has not actually lost anything, she still has the photos and the images on the website so why worry?

Graham has given useful information as to what action is easiest to take but quite honestly I feel that it will cause you and your friend less trouble and heartache by just forgetting about the slideshow.

Thanks for sharing the images with the world
Cheers
Guy

[Astoria]

If I had gone to the trouble of creating a web site ( as if I could ) I would be very miffed if someone nicked it. Though imitation is the best form of flattery.

[pipsqueak]

I agree, but perhaps the photographer is a professional (or aspires to be) so infringement of copyright then becomes of some consequence. We all have the right to claim copyright to our own images, but there are millions of copyright-free images out there, so why take the ones that are copyright?

My own view is that if someone takes my images to use in a pleasant and positive way, that's fine. If I were to find that someone had doctored and/or used them for something horrible, I'd be very upset. (Someone once swiped a photo of me from a website, added an ugly head to the body and used it as their avatar just because they had taken a dislike to the person they perceived me to be online. It was very upsetting.)

[Mary Anne]

You could post a comment under their Youtube video to the effect that "...these images belong to...and are beign used without permission."

Too bad they haven't even got enough grammar to know that the plural of "Church" is "Churches"...

Unfortunately, once anything is on the Internet, it really is as if you posted it yourself on a billboard, so you shouldn't be too surprised that someone has nicked it. At least they have used it for a benign product.

Just curiosity on my part, but looking at the website and the Youtube video, I wonder if this person isn't a student working on a class project? In which case, a short lesson on copyright might not be a bad thing! Have you tried contacting them?

Mary Anne

[CanCan]

Not sure if I can or should post web page link, but the company is *** ****. If you put *** **** into google ,they are the first link.

[Peter_uk_can]

Can Can. I wouldn't worry too much about the company. If their photo work is as bad as their English..... ......

[Geoffers]

Not sure if I can or should post web page link, but the company is *** ***. If you put *** **** into google ,they are the first link.

You shouldn't post the link here. In fact I will remove the name of the company from the thread to avoid anyone being tempted to view material in breach of copyright. (Peter, I wholly agree with the comment about the spelling)

[Mary Anne]

The company's website just seems to me to be a shell, as this video is the only thing on it...That's what made me wonder if it was a student project...you know, create an e-commerce website, selling some product (in this case, apparently, videos) and set up a video viewer and shopping cart, etc. Could also account for the spelling...

[websterbfc]

thanks everyone for your replies and ideas for protecting pics

in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter that much, just is a point of principle.

As for the grammar.....not only is the film maker having probs with plurals but but also

St Jame's should be St James
St Steven should be St Stephen
St Elizabeth should be St Elisabeth that one is included on a great big banner on the gates of the pic, the others are all spelled correctly on the website

to be honest i think you are right and it is probably a teenager that has made the 'video' they also have a rather disturbing on (in my opinion) in memory of a 14 year old girl that was killed. There certainly no loss of revenue and it is not something i would pursue except. I was more interested in how to protect the pics in future. The trouble is, if someone is tracing their tree in buckhurst hill and stumbles across our website, i would like them to be able to print off pics if they want to and are relevant to them. So whilst the java script business is useful to know i don't think i would use it in this case....thanks though i will copy it in case i need it in the future.

I am thinking of including copyright on the pics, but not across just at the bottom which will give peeps the opportunity to include it if thy use the photos, obviously with computer picture packages they could easily remove it but i guess that is life.

[Karrie Cutlets]

As the photographer, I do feel flattered that they have used the photographs & in the scheme of things it doesnt matter.

However i would be 'slightly' put out if the images were used to make this person money as they are for everyone's benefit who may be interested in Buckhurst Hill

[websterbfc]

However i would be 'slightly' put out if the images were used to make this person money

that would be an entirely different matter karen and if the film maker was going to be making money form your pics...i would peruse it most defiantly

[raineshoe]

I know this is probably not what you wish to read but-
Does it really matter?

Guy

YES IT DOES MATTER.

The job I do relies on photographs of my work to show what I can do. If someone takes those images without asking and puts them on a site claiming they are theirs they are defrauding the public as to what they are offering ie their work may not be at my level.

The attitude of "does it really matter" by people is why so many people get their pics nicked with out asking and find them displayed on places like YouTube. Its just not on. |soapbox|

;)

[Nicolina]

unfortunately, Graham, adding the script to stop right-clicking doesn't stop anyone from getting a copy of the photos. There are several other ways of harvesting them.

[MarkJ]

Exactly Nicolina ;)

Sorry, but if someone places stuff online, then they have to accept that there is a risk of it being lifted by someone.
We have discussed this type of thing on several occasions on the forum - mostly in relation to the "theft" of family tree info. If you don't want it using by others - don't put it online in full view of the world.

Mark

[Peter_uk_can]

I am with Mark on this one. I wouldn't dream of providing any information about myself on the internet. ;)

[raineshoe]

Unfortunately, as someone else said the scripts help, but there are other ways if you are savy enough to have the pics lifted. I've had them lifted with a watermark on and the watermark then removed and pics placed on another site. I ask you, who'd want to go to those lengths. Create your own pics much better.

Unfortunately, for my job I need to have the stuff on the web as nearly all my work comes through my web site, but I agree if you don't want them nicked and you don't need to have them on the web don't or have them on a password protected area whereby only family can access maybe.

If its any use to anyone, I have found a telephone call if you know who the culprit is or can track them does help ie tell them the error of their ways and then come on heavy if they don't remove them. Some people probably don't realise but I am sure the majority are aware. Having said that if its for genealogy purposes it may not be quite so desperate, although I can fully see how upset some people will be.

Incidentally, I'm not precious about my family history stuff and anyone can take stuff off that site if they wish :cool: