Educating people about copyright…
February 27, 2023, 1:24 PM
Sometimes it’s interesting what happens when you discuss copyright infringement amongst your friends. I recently made a post on Facebook about a company that routinely uses my photos in their work, that I have not had any success in pursuing. It led to very positive discussion, and I think that I helped a few folks learn something new about intellectual property that they may not have known before.
Unlike most occasions when I will go online and grouse about unauthorized usages of my photography, this one turned up some new discussion besides the standard responses like, “You should sue them,” and the like. For the record, while taking someone to court over copyright infringement is definitely a possible remedy, it is by no means the only remedy, nor is it something that one takes lightly. This is not a case of, “When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.” A lawsuit is really only a viable option in a small subset of usage cases, and while there have been lawsuits filed on my behalf regarding unauthorized usages, they are exceedingly rare. Also, note “filed on my behalf” in that last sentence. I do not file lawsuits myself. People that I have designated as my agents who know more about these things than I do are the ones who file the suits. I know my own limits. Also, people forget that the instances of copyright infringement that I grouse about online are just the ones that really irk me, and also are ones that got away. Most of my copyright infringement cases are resolved amicably, and you never hear about those.
A few points came up in this discussion that are worth mentioning here. First was a suggestion that I watermark my images. This is a perennial suggestion, and, truth be told, it’s something that I’ve tested and implemented in the past, and later had to undo. Back in the early 2000s, I started some early forays into photo licensing, under a brand called “StratoSearch”. When I was getting ready to implement that, I started putting watermarks on my photos on Schumin Web in order to prevent clean copies of the larger photos from going out willy-nilly, i.e. reserve the clean versions for paying clients. With that, I put Schumin Web’s logo in the corner of the full-size images, i.e. the ones that you click through to see. That was a bit of extra work on my part, but I did it, using a template to apply the logo. I eventually dropped the licensing effort there after a rebranding and redesign in 2003 failed to drum up any business. I now understand that my work back then was not to the level of quality that I thought it was, and that my marketing efforts were terrible. But nonetheless, the watermarks remained. If you want to see what the watermark looked like in practice, go look on College Life, where the watermark has been retained, and where there are no plans to remove it for historical reasons.
Continue reading…Categories: Copyright infringement, Social media
You made your bed, and now you have to lie in it…
December 9, 2022, 12:56 PM
Lately, a lot of the DMCA takedown notices that I’ve filed have been for “nostalgia” pages on Facebook. In other words, those pages where people find photos around the Internet of stuff from a given period and then repost them with no permission, no attribution, or anything else. I don’t typically frequent these types of pages myself, but others who are familiar with my work will usually let me know when they spot one of my photos being used in an unauthorized manner. When I’m notified, I will go in and locate it, and then I’ll get all of my ducks in a row before I complete the DMCA form and submit it. And then, unsurprisingly, the people who get nailed get a little salty about it, while never considering for a moment that they may have had a lapse in judgment somewhere.
Two recent instances of this stand out in my mind. The first was for a nostalgia group that focused on the 2000s. In that case, I found a number of photos from my Journal entry about the 2005 remodel of the Walmart in Lexington, Virginia. For that, I had to submit multiple takedown notices in order to cover the various photos that were included, but I got it done. Two days later, I received confirmation from Facebook that the photos were removed. A few hours later, I heard back from the infringer, a woman named Darla Griffin, who was clearly unhappy about the situation that they now found themselves in. Like many infringers, they wrote me to complain, while attempting to verbally lick their own wounds after they got caught.
Categories: Copyright infringement, Social media
Still clueless, and not getting any better…
August 5, 2022, 10:37 AM
Do you remember that Journal entry that I did a few months ago about David Pinson, the guy who had no clue about why I was filing a copyright claim against his video that used my photo of the old Giant Food store on O Street NW? As it turned out, he didn’t learn a thing. Recently, while I was nailing another YouTube user for a copyright infringement issue, I ran into Pinson’s channel, Earl of Baltimore, in my list of past copyright infringement claims. So while I was in there, considering our history, I gave it a quick look over to make sure that my image was still gone. I went in expecting to find nothing, so I was surprised that I actually had a hit. I found this:
Categories: Copyright infringement
A little awareness goes a long way…
April 11, 2022, 9:53 AM
Sometimes, it surprises me about how much some people lack awareness about their situation when they get caught in a copyright infringement case. In this case, I sent a takedown notice for a photo of the old Giant Food store on O Street NW in Washington, DC, i.e. this photo:
Categories: Copyright infringement, Middle school, YouTube
Let me play a sad song for you on the world’s smallest violin…
October 29, 2021, 9:36 AM
Do you remember about a month or so ago, when I made that Journal entry about Jeremy Jones, the guy who used several of my photos in an infringing manner, and lost his Twitter account for it? He recently came back to badger me via Messenger one more time, and this time, unlike the silence that I had been giving him after my first response where I said that the matter was already resolved, I let him have it. I told him that his losing his Twitter account is not my problem, that calling my parents in search of me was completely out of line, and I included the link to the earlier Journal entry.
I got a rather long-winded response to that message, and the sense that I got was that he had no real argument, and this was mostly an attempt to verbally lick his wounds in order to make himself feel better after being told in a definitive manner that I wasn’t playing:
Hey Ben,
Appreciate the response. I respect your decision, didn’t really know that you felt that way but I understand now. If you’re open to it, I’d like to explain how I feel about this situation now.
I think in the future you should try to be more compassionate and really understand what’s going on before writing me off because the way that you describe some of these things in the article are simply not true. For instance, this happens to be my first rodeo because the claims that people made would goto a specific email and those emails have all been deleted. So because of that I wasn’t able to be notified about any claims made against my account nor have the proper way to get in contact. On top of that I had ZERO KNOWLEDGE that using other people images was even an issue and I’m sure that’s hard for you to believe because you’re in the photography industry but it’s 100% true and is also 100% my fault for not knowing. Secondly, it does mean this much to me.. it took me time to get in contact with you because I don’t have the emails associated with the claims, I found yours on a site called lumendatabase.org and that’s how I reached out. I’m sure you don’t care about this stuff but in no way was I malicious in my intent to use your photos if anything I used your photos because they were a great way to represent what we were posting about at the time. I would normally read a story, goto google, save a picture and post it not even knowing what I was doing. Thirdly, I can’t believe that you would assume that me offering to help you in return isn’t genuine. I’m not even sure how you’d come to that conclusion. I was always taught to bring something to the table when asking and I was simply doing that in a very genuine way. I had plans and ways that I could help for the mishap. But that’s neither here no there, I respect your decision and I will no longer contact you. Thanks for your time.
Categories: Copyright infringement, Some people
When I say no, I actually do mean no…
September 14, 2021, 2:32 PM
We’ve all been taught the meaning of “no” before, as well as the idea of “no means no”, i.e. someone has declined, and that’s the end of it. “No” doesn’t mean “yes, if I am persistent enough.” When I say “no”, I mean it. In the case of Jeremy Jones, who ran the @DMVFollowers Twitter account, I feel like he just couldn’t grasp this concept.
For some background information on this case, DMVFollowers was a Twitter account that posted news about things happening in the Washington, DC area. They typically posted links to news articles, and included a photo with their posts. Their feed looked like this according to an Internet Archive snapshot from January 2018:
Categories: Copyright infringement, Some people
Some people just don’t learn…
February 7, 2021, 10:20 PM
Do you remember Marilyn Armstrong, whom I wrote about a few weeks ago regarding a case of copyright infringement? She came back for a second round. Apparently, she found my Journal entry, and just couldn’t leave well enough alone, going on another rant in the comments:
First of all, NO ONE intentionally took anything. This appeared in a pile of pictures listed by Google as “free for public use.” No name or other information was attached. I didn’t write the piece, I didn’t post the picture and if I want a picture, I use my own since I am also a photographer. One of the people who writes on this blog was just looking for a picture of a building with an orange roof and it came up in that Google collection. I don’t know how ANYONE can figure out whose picture it is when there’s no attached information AND it did not come from your site. I already said I was sorry, that it was accidental, unintentional, non-commercial. Beyond that, you really might consider embedding copyright information in your pictures so people have some way of knowing that the picture is NOT — as Google said — free for public use.
Since I didn’t select OR use the picture personally, and since GOOGLE was the organization that pulled it off your blog and stuck it in a pile of “free for public use” pictures, maybe you should consider going after them. Someone ought to, but they have a lot of money and a lot of lawyers and if the U.S. government can’t get them, I’m pretty sure you can’t and I can’t, so they’ll just keep doing what they do and people like me will get blamed for assuming that they aren’t lying.
Categories: Copyright infringement, Some people
A lot of “teachable moments” in one email…
December 18, 2020, 6:20 PM
Recently, I submitted a takedown notice for content in a post called “Preaching to the Choir” which, among other things, discusses the seventh and ninth commandments in the Bible (conveniently skipping over #8, i.e. “thou shalt not steal”), on a blog called Serendipity Seeking Intelligent Life on Earth. The post contained a photo that I took of the former Howard Johnson’s on Afton Mountain. Specifically, they used this shot:
Categories: Copyright infringement, Some people
The more they talk, the more irresponsible they sound…
April 23, 2020, 10:45 AM
So I have a new story about my experience enforcing copyrights, this one involving materials posted to YouTube. First of all, though, for those not familiar with how YouTube handles DMCA copyright takedowns, it is worth noting that their takedown form is a bit lackluster, though they’re usually pretty quick to respond. The problem is that YouTube doesn’t allow a claimant (i.e. me) to fully make my claim to ownership of a piece of video content, which has led to problems in the past. Here’s the relevant section of YouTube’s copyright form:
Categories: Copyright infringement
Yes, about that historic French cemetery…
July 9, 2017, 11:55 PM
Sometimes, you really have to give someone the proverbial “smackdown”. Such was the case of a recent copyright infringement issue that I had with a death metal band called Barbiturate. As you may know, I periodically skim the Internet looking for unauthorized usages of my photography, which I then submit to Pixsy, a company that goes after these copyright infringers for royalties, therefore making the illegal usages legal. I really don’t care when people use my work elsewhere. I actually find it somewhat flattering. However, if you are making money (and by that, I mean taking in revenue, regardless of whether you turn a profit) with my photo, you can afford to pay me for that usage (i.e. “F— You, Pay Me“), either by licensing it up front, or by having me chase you down via Pixsy. Or at the very least, you can ask me for permission, because I do occasionally authorize use of my work for free. But generally speaking, I don’t work for free, or for some vague notion of “exposure”. I have a Flickr account and other outlets that give me plenty of exposure, thank you very much. I don’t need anyone’s help getting exposure for my work.
In the Barbiturate case, I found this photo in Pixsy’s image search:
Categories: Copyright infringement
So, about that whole “thou shalt not steal” thing…
May 7, 2017, 11:50 AM
Sometimes the level of hypocrisy shown by those in organized religion just makes me stand back in awe. They preach Christian values, and then don’t follow them in real life. In this instance, it involves the church that I used to attend from 1992 until 2003, and where I am still technically a member, albeit inactive. Through a recent interaction, I learned quite a bit more than I expected as far as where things stand with them.
For those who aren’t familiar, I work with a company called Pixsy to recover royalties for cases where my photographs are used without permission. I routinely search for and submit cases where my photos are used without permission in hopes of recovering license fees for that usage. Basically, I have no problem with downstream usages of my photos. But I am a professional who deserves to be paid for those usages in a professional setting. Basically, if you expect to take in revenue based on materials that contain my work, then you need to pay me for the usage. My take on it is that if you were going to hire a photographer to do a shoot for you, there’s no question that you would pay them. But by using photos of mine that I have already created, you’ve essentially hired me as your photographer, and as such, I should be paid. Using my work for commercial purposes without even so much as asking me is a major no-no as far as I’m concerned.
In this case, I was skimming through the Internet looking for potential infringement cases, I found this:
Categories: Copyright infringement, Religion
“Wait, isn’t that…?”
May 12, 2016, 1:01 PM
Imagine my surprise to sit down at my computer this morning to check Facebook, and be greeted by this image from ABC affiliate WJLA:
Categories: Copyright infringement, Weather, Wikipedia
“He offered her the world…”
October 14, 2015, 11:50 PM
I’m always surprised to see how some of my photos are used. I recently got a membership with Pixsy, which skims the Internet for potentially infringing photo usages, and then allows the user to go after infringing users to get them to pay for their usage. One photo that surprised me as a frequent candidate for infringements was this one from 2003:
Categories: Copyright infringement, Roanoke, Schumin Web meta, Television
No more Creative Commons license?
February 20, 2014, 12:00 AM
As of today, The Schumin Web is no longer offered under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license. The site will now be offered under the traditional “all rights reserved” model, i.e. explicit written permission is required for most downstream usages. I am doing this for one purpose: to make money. I went to the Creative Commons model back in November 2005 in order to give my work more exposure through downstream uses, and apparently it’s worked. I now have a portfolio of over 250 downstream usages, both online and in print. I now have plenty of exposure. People know who I am, and know about my work, based on multiple usages from a few high-profile entities. Therefore, I believe that I have reached the point where I can monetize my photography work and bring in a few extra bucks. The idea is that if you work for some vague notion of “exposure”, that is all you are ever going to get, and it’s very easy to be taken advantage of that way. As I field more and more licensing requests from companies, it is clear that there is monetary value in what I produce.
Because of this, there are a few changes in the way that things will operate as far as image licensing goes, as I attempt to reconcile the old Creative Commons license with the new all-rights-reserved model. First of all, please note: as of today, no new downstream usages of any Schumin Web content are allowed under any form of Creative Commons license. Please see the new Content Licensing page for information about new downstream usages of Schumin Web content. All existing downstream content usages that were made using the old Creative Commons license are grandfathered. Thus, for example, if you used a picture under the Creative Commons license last year, nothing affects that past usage. However, if you want to use another image today, you need to receive explicit written permission to use that image, even if the image was originally published during the period when the Creative Commons license was in effect.
Categories: Copyright infringement, Schumin Web meta
If you can’t follow a license as easy as mine…
October 9, 2013, 3:21 PM
I am of the view that information deserves to be free, which is one of the reasons that I make my work available under a Creative Commons license. For those not familiar, I provide my content under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States license. In a nutshell, that means that you are welcome to use materials found here for any purpose, including commercially, as long as you provide proper attribution, and share it under the same or similar license as you found it (it’s only fair, after all). I even wrote a guide on reuse of content found here. When I converted the site to WordPress, one of the changes that I made was to make the images available for download at full resolution. That was done specifically to help downstream users get what they need and get creating without assistance from me. That same conversion, with the image restoraton and such that went along with it, also finally allowed me to provide clean images right out of the box. Recall that at one point, I put my logo and URL in the corner of the large-size images for photo sets. Then I stopped doing that in 2005 or so, right around when I introduced the Creative Commons license to the site. The conversion and image restoration work removed all of the remaining tagged images, making every photo “clean” without any extraneous markings.
I like to think that I’m one of the more permissive and lenient content owners out there. Unlike many other entities that do not allow downstream use without explicit permission, I do allow downstream use right out of the box, as long as two things are present: attribution (preferably as “Ben Schumin/The Schumin Web”), and a free license. That’s not that hard to do, and by and large, most people who reuse content found here follow the license. But it really frosts my cookies when people don’t follow that, and because my license is so easy to meet, I take a very dim view toward noncompliance.
It always amazes me how many people think that because something is on the public Internet, that it’s public domain and can be used with wild abandon. It’s quite common. I’ve even had to disabuse my own mother of this notion before. Rather, just like any other medium, just because it exists does not mean that you have carte blanche to do whatever you want with it. Most material on the Internet is not, in fact, public domain, and therefore potential downstream users have to play by the content owner’s rules (or you don’t play). Those rules are up to the content owner.
Categories: Copyright infringement, Netculture, Schumin Web meta