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.

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)

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?

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.

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.

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).

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.

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...