|
Forums >
General Industry >
Is this illegal?
I did a google search on my name tonight, and found quite a few sites that I didn't know that I was on, especially considering that I never e-mail them my pictures or a link to my pictures. Some of these sites are celebritybattles.com, and freeones.com. There's even a site where you can download "Wendi Meece" wallpapers! Now, to be perfectly honest with you, I really don't care, but I'm afraid that the photographers that took the pictures will. (Which I feel that they have every reason to!) Any info? May 18 05 11:46 pm Link Ah welcome to the internet and your fan base... Here is my take.. #1 - if the photogrpaher did not put their info on the photos then to bad for them as those types of sites are free advertising.. #2 - its free advertising... do you have a site? if you do every photo you take should have the site on the photo somewhere.. it is the best web advertising available.. Is it legal... well no - they took the images from somewhere - thou enforcing ti is alomost impossible as most of those servers are offshore and you will have no luck in removing them as they abide by no (C) rules... EX: www.allaboutwendi.com This should be on all your photos.. May 18 05 11:51 pm Link Posted by Brent Burzycki: About point #1...what if the photographers copyright was on the original, but the person that "took" the image cropped the copyright out? May 18 05 11:58 pm Link If the country where the photos are being hosted has copyright laws, it's not legal. If, as Brent said, they're not, you're stuck. In the first case, especially if they're hosted in the US, you can file a DMCA complaint with the host and they must remove the photos. You can also sue, but that's time-consuming and can be expensive considering that odds are the infringer has no money to pay damages. Speaking of damages, unless your photos are registered with the copyright office, most damages are hard to recover, even though you will win the case. If the second case is true... well... you can ask your friendly neighborhood hacker to take down the site by force :-) May 18 05 11:59 pm Link Posted by Wendi Meece: Either way, it's a copyright violation. May 19 05 12:00 am Link Posted by Chris Ambler: Posted by Wendi Meece: Either way, it's a copyright violation. I'm not sure if the photographer registered his copyright or not...I will call him tomorrow. And you're right, I don't mind, I was just trying to look out for my photographers! After all, where would I be without them!!! May 19 05 12:03 am Link Wendi, that's been going on for years. I've lost track of how many pics with my name on them are being used for similar purposes. If they're not being used for monetary reasons and the pic has not been altered or my name taken off, then it's just more free promotion for me, sometimes I'll contact them to see if they need more! To get a real Google hit count number on your exact name which would be the accurate way, you place your name in just like this, "Wendi Meece" (caps don't matter), that way will give you your first and last name together as it should be. Otherwise you'll get all kinds of other names that are only Wendi or Meece. "wendi meece" =645 And if you think you have problems keeping track of your stuff, "gary darrar" =1620 May 19 05 12:14 am Link Call it a lost cause and really the photographer should know this too. If he doesn't then this is his chance to learn that the internet gets away with pretty much anything. This is not your job to have to be a cyber cop for the photographer. As long as you don't have any connection with the site I wouldn't even give it a second thought. This will never be worth the legal battle and you should be proud of them using your pictures whether it's good or bad cause that means you've done something right in this industry cause you're getting attention. Congratulations you have now earned the title "Celebrity". I think a party should follow this discovery and I hope I'm invited. May 19 05 12:19 am Link Posted by Rafael Alvarez: ^ May 19 05 12:23 am Link "wendi meece" =645 And if you think you have problems keeping track of your stuff, "gary darrar" =1620 Lucky you!!! May 19 05 12:30 am Link O.K...party is on! (Meet me in Florida?!?!) May 19 05 12:32 am Link When if it's at the end of the summer and my show goes over well them I might just make such a thing. Other wise I'm mista broke for now.  May 19 05 12:39 am Link Posted by Wendi Meece: That's just from promoting myself going way back to 1997. May 19 05 12:41 am Link Since we're comparing penises (I mean google results): "Chris Ambler" - 3,890 or, properly done, "Christopher Ambler" - 7,160 google results. I WIN! I WIN! Um... nevermind :-) May 19 05 01:24 am Link Posted by Chris Ambler: Just you wait, I'll catch up...(In, like, 50 years!!!) May 19 05 01:28 am Link Posted by Chris Ambler: No you don't! May 19 05 01:28 am Link Hey, I think I'll start another post about this! May 19 05 01:29 am Link Hey Chris, I didn't know you were in the UK working as an account exec. Boy, everyone has a secret life but me Now look what I started. May 19 05 01:57 am Link Posted by Glamour Studio /Gary: I'm a undercover Cuban midget that was brought to the US to spy on the photography world and see how I can get myself on the cover of Play Girl. May 19 05 02:02 am Link After reading this I typed in my name. 15,600,000!!! Of course none have anything to do with me. Mike May 19 05 12:18 pm Link Posted by Wendi Meece: Two IF's here. If they are located in a country that follows the copyright laws then IF they removed the copyright notice they have comitted a FELONY! May 19 05 12:42 pm Link If it happened with images that I took, I'd be more upset that I wasn't being credited as the photographer. I'd also be ABSOLUTELY PISSED if they claimed my work as theirs. (especially if they were making money with em) About the only thing you can do is e-mail them and ask them to add your's and the original photog's info to the images. But like what other's have said, if they're not based here there's little hope of getting any compliance with our laws. I would DEFINITELY tell the original photographer(s) of the images in question what is going on so they can take steps to protect their interests. May 19 05 01:26 pm Link Posted by Mike Sellers: It doesn't count if you don't put it in quotes. Otherwise you get a hit from either word by itself. May 19 05 04:11 pm Link Posted by Wendi Meece: Hmmm....well,... I hope you are using an alias online.. I try to get all models who do online modeling to use an alias just because of reasons like that.. May 26 05 10:54 pm Link While you may not care if someone uses your images on their website, the effects of being associated with 'pirate websites' can be disasterous! For instance, there currently is a person thats been banned from practically EVERY modeling and photography forum in existance (including Model Mahem). A Federal Court ordered the guy to pay Playboy Enterprises Inc over $650,000.00 in penalties and legal costs after being convicted of copyright and trademark infringement. The same guy continues to STEAL other peoples photos without their knowledge or consent, and use the pirated photos to promote his websites and his fake companies and mythical magazines in an attempt to get naive females to 'work' with him. NO LEGITIMATE AGENCY OR PUBLICATION WILL HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS PERSON OR THE MODELS THAT HE CLAIMS TO REPRESENT! This can cost the models jobs that they might not even be aware of! While I mainly speak of one particular scammer, there are MANY more that operate similar to him. May 27 05 01:19 am Link |
