Welcome to SP!  -
Areas & RangesMountains & RocksRoutesImagesArticlesTrip ReportsGearOtherPeoplePlans & PartnersWhat's NewForum

These guys have been really busy stealing photos from SP

Post general questions and discuss issues related to climbing.
 

Postby Big Benn » Mon Dec 21, 2009 9:41 am

Coming back on what I posted earlier.

Maybe I'm too relaxed about this issue. But I feel the enormous advantages of being able to post digital photos on the Internet far outweigh this unpleasant downside.

I love posting my photos, and I get enormous pleasure looking at other SP'ers photos. There are sights here I would never, ever have got to see. Some of those winter exposed ridges!

Just keep them low res and no one can use them for any serious alternative purpose, they have to come to you for decent versions.

Incidentally I have used other peoples' photos for some of my web sites. (steam locos.). And with the exception of the UK, (miserable tight fisted so and sos over here), have always been granted permission. Apart from one 1930s German steam photo I really wanted to use, where I went to enormous lengths to try and find a copyright owner and having failed, put a note to that effect under the photo when I used it.

The USA has been the easiest place to get permission from! One book company had an old photo in one of their books I really wanted to use, but they had lost details of the copyright owner. So they gave me appropriate wording to use under it, which was very kind and thoughtful of them.
User Avatar
Big Benn

 
Posts: 6589
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:50 am
Location: European, United Kingdom
Thanked: 502 times in 316 posts

Postby nartreb » Mon Dec 21, 2009 7:14 pm

However, if they are in some far off country there is not a lot you could do.


Pick up your yellow pages and talk to a lawyer in their country. In most countries the losing party (the copier) will have to pay your lawyer's fees.

(In the US, you can also get lawer's fees paid for a copyright violation, but only if you've registered the copyright: see page 7)
User Avatar
nartreb

 
Posts: 1996
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 10:45 pm
Location: online or in boston, Massachusetts, United States
Thanked: 111 times in 90 posts

Postby Lolli » Fri Sep 10, 2010 9:24 pm

Interesting - an entire thread about stolen photos... and no accuses of libel. Very odd indeed...

Anyway, as the thread I started is gone, and I don't remember whose photo it was on that site, but I'd like to email him, since he's not active here anymore. Anybody remember who it was?
User Avatar
Lolli

 
Posts: 810
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:56 pm
Location: Sweden
Thanked: 108 times in 67 posts

Postby butitsadryheat » Sun Sep 12, 2010 6:54 am

can't remember that it was the #3 pic on the entire site...
User Avatar
butitsadryheat

 
Posts: 8247
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2005 7:59 pm
Location: Bakersfield, California, United States
Thanked: 1515 times in 1091 posts

Postby Buz Groshong » Mon Sep 13, 2010 2:47 pm

MoapaPk wrote:The search failed on the first image I tried, which I know to be on SP. Have you tried it?


I'm guessing that if someone takes your photo and reduces the resolution (pixel size) before they use it on their site, the search won't find it.
User Avatar
Buz Groshong

 
Posts: 2824
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 10:58 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia, United States
Thanked: 676 times in 476 posts

Postby simonov » Mon Sep 13, 2010 3:28 pm

Buz Groshong wrote:I'm guessing that if someone takes your photo and reduces the resolution (pixel size) before they use it on their site, the search won't find it.


No, Tineye will find different sizes IF they have the image in their database.

The problem with Tineye today is they are far from comprehensive. That should improve over time.
User Avatar
simonov

 
Posts: 1369
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 3:07 pm
Location: Costa Mesa, California, United States
Thanked: 466 times in 269 posts

Postby Augie Medina » Mon Sep 13, 2010 7:04 pm

coldfoot wrote:
"Intellectual property" law is a different and more complicated set of issues than copyright law - it has to do with things like patents, trade secrets, designs, and so on. The issues there are often less clear cut than copyright.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.


Copyright law is part of what is called "intellectual property" law. All areas of intellectual property law can get pretty complicated and there are a lot of gray areas (e.g., what is "fair use" of say a protected piece of music in a particular circumstance). But you're right that there are basic principles such as if you create something copyrightable (that can often be a hard question in itself), then you own the rights to the creation (photograph, poem, whatever).
User Avatar
Augie Medina

 
Posts: 793
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 7:56 pm
Location: South Pasadena, California, United States
Thanked: 10 times in 7 posts

Re: These guys have been really busy stealing photos from SP

Postby toc » Sun Jul 10, 2011 9:12 pm

User Avatar
toc

 
Posts: 5163
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 4:49 pm
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Thanked: 5 times in 5 posts

Re:

Postby Buz Groshong » Tue Jul 12, 2011 4:05 pm

simonov wrote:
Buz Groshong wrote:I'm guessing that if someone takes your photo and reduces the resolution (pixel size) before they use it on their site, the search won't find it.


No, Tineye will find different sizes IF they have the image in their database.

The problem with Tineye today is they are far from comprehensive. That should improve over time.


There appears to be another problem with Tineye: I did a search for one of my photos and what it found was a very similar photo taken by someone else. There was enough difference between the two that I could tell they weren't the same photo, so I guess I don't understand why it didn't find a bunch more similar photos.
User Avatar
Buz Groshong

 
Posts: 2824
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 10:58 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia, United States
Thanked: 676 times in 476 posts

Re: These guys have been really busy stealing photos from SP

Postby Bruno » Wed Jul 20, 2011 3:05 pm

I'm ready to bet that no authorisation was asked for these two pictures:

1) Noijin Kangsang
Original: http://www.summitpost.org/three-trekkers-at-16-300/80186/c-380352, picture by Spence
Copy: http://mountainadventuretreks.com/trip/tibet/tibet-side-expedition/nyenchen-khangsang-expedition.html

2) Palung Ri
Original: http://escalar.es/expediciones/nueva-ruta-en-el-palung-ri
Copy: http://mountainadventuretreks.com/trip/tibet/tibet-side-expedition/palung-ri-expedition.html

The worst is that Mountain Experience (as sister company of Himalayan Experience owned by Russell Brice) is advertising Palung Ri as "unclimbed", located "in a little visited asyet un-spoilt region of Tibet".

The truth is that Palung Ri was first climbed 59 years ago (14 May 1952 by a British expedition), and the ascent has been repeated several times since. Mountain Experience should know it better than anybody else, as the picture they have probably stolen has been published in Desnivel to report a 2006 new route opened by Spanish Jordi Tosas.

And for a "little visited" "un-spoilt" region, Palung Ri is usually climbed on a day hike from Cho Oyu BC, probably the second most visited BC after Everest... Palung Ri is a very nice mountain, but I hope potential clients will think twice before paying the big money to Brice & Co to climb such exclusive "unclimbed" peak in a "little visited" region...
User Avatar
Bruno

 
Posts: 279
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2007 9:16 am
Location: Swaziland
Thanked: 110 times in 74 posts

The following user would like to thank Bruno for this post
Damien Gildea

Previous

Return to General

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

© 2006-2013 SummitPost.org. All Rights Reserved.