HJM Photography wrote:
Photographer/retoucher removes my watermark, edits photo with faux bokeh/alien skin (which I hate), & adds his own watermark!

His photo:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid … 17cee7b5ae

Original Photo:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/herosjourn … 411656511/

Really?  What are people thinking?

He comments, "De hele serie is inderdaad mooi! Te bezichtigen op zijn Flickr account!" which means, "The whole series is indeed beautiful! Be seen on his Flickr account!"  But he provides no link.  lol.

Sent him a PM on Facebook

Benjamin Kanarek wrote:
I sent him a note on Facebook

Good move.

Onya BK!

.

Benjamin Kanarek wrote:
I sent him a note on Facebook here it is:

You don't know me…But if you Google my name you will…I strongly suggest you remove the following image and send an apology to the original photographer of this image. If you do not, I will send out notifications to every major source, i.e. magazine, ad agencies, etc and make sure you do not steal from others in the future.

Stealing others work is unacceptable and illegal at best.



http://www.flickr.com/photos/herosjourn … 411656511/

Also

http://www.benjaminkanarekblog.com/2009 … es-around/

What a great thing you did, Ben. Wonderful! And your story about the art director shows that perhaps such stealing has become routine and people don't think there will be consequences.

Hi_Spade Photography wrote:
He's not a "photographer". He's a THIEF.

STONE HIM IN THE CITY MARKET!!

HJM Photography wrote:
Photographer/retoucher removes my watermark, edits photo with faux bokeh/alien skin (which I hate), & adds his own watermark!

His photo:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid … 17cee7b5ae

Original Photo:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/herosjourn … 411656511/

Really?  What are people thinking?

He comments, "De hele serie is inderdaad mooi! Te bezichtigen op zijn Flickr account!" which means, "The whole series is indeed beautiful! Be seen on his Flickr account!"  But he provides no link.  lol.

didn't this happen to you once before?

https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … 569&page=1

Benjamin Kanarek wrote:
I sent him a note on Facebook here it is:

You don't know me…But if you Google my name you will…I strongly suggest you remove the following image and send an apology to the original photographer of this image. If you do not, I will send out notifications to every major source, i.e. magazine, ad agencies, etc and make sure you do not steal from others in the future.

Stealing others work is unacceptable and illegal at best.



http://www.flickr.com/photos/herosjourn … 411656511/

Also

http://www.benjaminkanarekblog.com/2009 … es-around/

Thanks Ben!  Yes it looks like he took it down.

Mike Kelcher wrote:
HJM Photography,

At least your work is good enough to attract such image thieves.  My images suck so much that nobody wants 'em.

LMAO!!!!   Very Funny Indeed and I love your humility!

Had a look at your portfolio and you have nothing to excuse yourself for. Some very nice imagery indeed!

Photos by Lorrin wrote:
I think maybe he just learned about Karma.

if only other could learn as well.

Hi_Spade Photography wrote:
He's not a "photographer". He's a THIEF.

romen cole wrote:
STONE HIM IN THE CITY MARKET!!

Or, just surgically remove a couple of his prized body parts with a rusty knife.

We REMOVED some of our photos and ONE photo that was owned by 45SURF (the one we posted yesterday). Because some people don't clearly READ the comments that goes along with a photo, some "thought" I stole this image and claiming it was mine. On the image was clearly stating: Edited by (me).. And as comment with it, it clearly says, 45SURF was the OWNER and photographer of it. Some have noticed it, some didn't.

Hope you all can READ next time and don't keep on going with the talking, we STEAL and CLAIM images that are not ours!

Well, he removed my watermark and added his own.  Also, he edited my work in a manner I found distasteful, with faux bokeh & alien skin or some hipstagram filter.  He was using it to promote his business, with his watermark.  He never asked permission to use the photo, nor edit it, nor post it, nor remove my watermark, nor add his own.  Nor did he seek to offer compensation, as if the art of photography has no value without his cheesy editing and the photographer has no rights.

Here's a cool blog by the former Camper Van Beethoven/Cracker singer on the decline of intellectual property:
http://thetrichordist.com/

http://thetrichordist.com/2013/10/08/in … t-fosters/

Cyber-piracy increasingly costs the U.S. economy money that instead of creating and supporting jobs goes into the pockets of criminals. The government must act, and swiftly, by exercising its constitutional responsibility to ensure that this trend is reversed. This may require breaking some new ground and should be done only after careful, principled debate, with respect for liberty and adherence to our other, equally important, constitutional rights.

If the framers could understand this matter in the eighteenth century, we must believe the current Congress can grapple with it today. Previous efforts to update our intellectual property protection system were defeated in a flurry of misinformation. The proposed legislation may have been opaque and overly broad, but the concerns expressed by many conservatives and libertarians were overstated.

READ THE FULL STORY AT FOSTERS:
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar … FOSOPINION

thoughts?

HJM Photography wrote:
update:

He wrote:

https://www.facebook.com/GuidoSpekmanPh … 7813811158

We REMOVED some of our photos and ONE photo that was owned by 45SURF (the one we posted yesterday). Because some people don't clearly READ the comments that goes along with a photo, some "thought" I stole this image and claiming it was mine. On the image was clearly stating: Edited by (me).. And as comment with it, it clearly says, 45SURF was the OWNER and photographer of it. Some have noticed it, some didn't.

Hope you all can READ next time and don't keep on going with the talking, we STEAL and CLAIM images that are not ours!

Well, he removed my watermark and added his own.  Also, he edited my work in a manner I found distasteful, with faux bokeh & alien skin or some hipstagram filter.  He was using it to promote his business, with his watermark.  He never asked permission to use the photo, nor edit it, nor post it, nor remove my watermark, nor add his own.  Nor did he seek to offer compensation, as if the art of photography has no value without his cheesy editing and the photographer has no rights.

Here's a cool blog by the former Camper Van Beethoven/Cracker singer on the decline of intellectual property:
http://thetrichordist.com/

http://thetrichordist.com/2013/10/08/in … t-fosters/


READ THE FULL STORY AT FOSTERS:
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar … FOSOPINION

thoughts?

Did he send you an apology? As far as I am concerned he is "persona non grata"...

curiosa des yeux wrote:
Otherwise, it seems rare that a private and polite email to someone about any potential concerns would not fix an issue rather than going out and ranting in public on a forum. It really reeks of self importance, IMHO.

No one who steals another person's photo, retouches it(whether it be a shitty job or a top notch job) and then adds their own watermark and reposts it, all without the knowledge or consent of the the original photographer deserves politeness or privacy. It doesn't matter if there is calculable damages incurred or not. It's fucking rude AND against the law. And what reeks of self importance is the fact that some asshole has the balls to do this to begin with.

Lets put it this way. I think I've just decided to go into the retouching business so I'm going to grab a few of your images and add some selective color to them. Maybe some bright red lips and blue eyes to brake up all those shades of grey. Thanks for not watermarking your images BTW, it'll totally make it easier to add mine. I'll send you the link to my new FB page when I get it set up so you can "like" me

Keith Allen Phillips wrote:
Lets put it this way. I think I've just decided to go into the retouching business so I'm going to grab a few of your images and add some selective color to them. Maybe some bright red lips and blue eyes to brake up all those shades of grey. Thanks for not watermarking your images BTW, it'll totally make it easier to add mine. I'll send you the link to my new FB page when I get it set up so you can "like" me

I'd hope you have better things to do with your free time, but if you care to do so then send me your FB and I'll send you a polite and private email if I have a problem with it. If you refuse to remove them, again assuming I give a damn, I'll send facebook a takedown notice. I might even find them amusing, so who knows? I'm 100% sure I'll be able to resist starting a thread about it unless they are really cool.

Mike Kelcher wrote:
HJM Photography,

At least your work is good enough to attract such image thieves.  My images suck so much that nobody wants 'em.

Yep, that pretty much sums up how I feel about it... LOL

curiosa des yeux wrote:

I'd hope you have better things to do with your free time, but if you care to do so then send me your FB and I'll send you a polite and private email if I have a problem with it. If you refuse to remove them, again assuming I give a damn, I'll send facebook a takedown notice. I might even find them amusing, so who knows? I'm 100% sure I'll be able to resist starting a thread about it unless they are really cool.

It's sad that someone with such nice work has such little respect for it.

curiosa des yeux wrote:
I'm a bit opposite of the views expressed so far, though I can say I don't know the person on Facebook and I'm not sticking up for that person either. Personally, I think the community of photographers is a little too sensy-poo about some of these "thieves". Call me crazy, but I really don't see the harm in a case like this and I certainly don't see how it costs anyone anything. The OP did not miss out on any opportunity to profit by the image and I don't think anyone would have mistaken the photoshop work as the OP's either, leaving me to wonder exactly what the damages would be if you ever wanted to take this to court. I think the answer from a judge would be: none.

It's one thing it there are legitimate damages incurred, but it's another if there isn't. I've only had one instance over the years where I felt that someone truly violated my rights in a way that warranted compensation, and it was when an employee of a company who hired me for corporate work had moved on to a different company and continued to use the portraits I provided his ex-employer (who also was the paying party). Additionally, this person used the images in an industry publication announcing that he'd been hired by his new employer, without permission from myself.

Otherwise, it seems rare that a private and polite email to someone about any potential concerns would not fix an issue rather than going out and ranting in public on a forum. It really reeks of self importance, IMHO.

So this other photographer did exactly what was done to you, pass off the OPs work as his onw, but it's not a big deal because it happened to someone else?

I don't get it

curiosa des yeux wrote:
...............Personally, I think the community of photographers is a little too sensy-poo about some of these "thieves". Call me crazy, but I really don't see the harm in a case like this and I certainly don't see how it costs anyone anything. The OP did not miss out on any opportunity to profit by the image and I don't think anyone would have mistaken the photoshop work as the OP's either, leaving me to wonder exactly what the damages would be if you ever wanted to take this to court. I think the answer from a judge would be: none.

It's one thing it there are legitimate damages incurred, but it's another if there isn't. I've only had one instance over the years where I felt that someone truly violated my rights in a way that warranted compensation, and it was when an employee of a company who hired me for corporate work had moved on to a different company and continued to use the portraits I provided his ex-employer (who also was the paying party). Additionally, this person used the images in an industry publication announcing that he'd been hired by his new employer, without permission from myself.

Otherwise, it seems rare that a private and polite email to someone about any potential concerns would not fix an issue rather than going out and ranting in public on a forum. It really reeks of self importance, IMHO.

Well, you are certainly entitled to disagree with the OP, and the vast majority of responders here, but I think you are missing the point.  The OP is not making an issue of copyright infringement; he is making a point about Plagiarism.  Taking someone's work, removing their watermark, and then claiming it as their own is Plagiarism.  It is theft IMHO, whether or not they profit from it. 

It may be that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but making a few digital manipulations, deliberately removing a watermark or copyright notice, and claiming the image as your own is beyond imitation.

AJScalzitti wrote:

So this other photographer did exactly what was done to you, pass off the OPs work as his onw, but it's not a big deal because it happened to someone else?

I don't get it

When I say I don't see the harm, I'm also not implying that you have to let it be either. I'm just saying that it's not a case where anything was lost in a monetary form, and while it may not be amusing to the OP, it's not difficult to resolve the issue either. In that way, I don't see it as a major problem in the grand scheme.

My example was to illustrate a financial imposition rather than a person having fun with the images. Not only that, but you can imagine that the company who hired me originally was not pleased to find the image they paid for in a published ad for one of their competitors. If the same guy put the image up on his facebook page, I would not have had any issue with it at all. When his employer (a medium sized corporate venture) uses the image on their corporate website in direct competition with one of my existing clients, I think there is a prime case where I have lost financial compensation for a service they should have hired me to provide (or any other photographer if not me). If they had asked about the photo, I would have informed them that because a competitor of theirs had already paid me for the image, I would not be willing to license it's use at any price, and would offer that they hire me to produce a new image to their specifications.

I'm not saying that people have to let others use their work and I believe that everyone should feel comfortable with what they believe in terms of what they find acceptable and not. However, I am saying that calling people out publicly without having made any attempt to communicate in a polite and private fashion first is bad form. I know that many will say that it's bad form of the person using the images, but I don't see how bad form by one person justifies the use of bad form by another. If you don't like someones behavior, you can still exhibit quality behavior yourself.

If you wanted to learn how to deal with an issue like this, it would be good form to ask in a way that keeps the parties involved hidden, then deal with the matter in your chosen manner afterwards. When I say that photographers are sensy-poo, I mean that they seem to over-react to these things on a regular basis rather than take the time to communicate with those they feel are wronging them in a way that shows some understanding. People do things wrong, sometimes by accident or ignorance and sometimes by design. I don't see how public embarrassment is more useful than a well worded email.

Light and Lens Studio wrote:

Well, you are certainly entitled to disagree with the OP, and the vast majority of responders here, but I think you are missing the point.  The OP is not making an issue of copyright infringement; he is making a point about Plagiarism.  Taking someone's work, removing their watermark, and then claiming it as their own is Plagiarism.  It is theft IMHO, whether or not they profit from it. 

It may be that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but making a few digital manipulations, deliberately removing a watermark or copyright notice, and claiming the image as your own is beyond imitation.

I thought I read that the "thief" had credited the photographer verbally next to the image, so his mistake was in not getting permission for use first. In that case, there is no plagiarism since he did not claim to produce the source material. It would be entirely a case about having permission to use the image.

curiosa des yeux wrote:
I thought I read that the "thief" had credited the photographer verbally next to the image, so his mistake was in not getting permission for use first. In that case, there is no plagiarism since he did not claim to produce the source material. It would be entirely a case about having permission to use the image.

Surely you've heard of watermarks, what they are  how they're used in photography and what they imply, yes?

curiosa des yeux wrote:

I thought I read that the "thief" had credited the photographer verbally next to the image, so his mistake was in not getting permission for use first. In that case, there is no plagiarism since he did not claim to produce the source material. It would be entirely a case about having permission to use the image.

Man..i think you should just stop, just stop. You are very misinformed

Untitled Photographer wrote:

Surely you've heard of watermarks, what they are  how they're used in photography and what they imply, yes?

I'm not sure what your point is. I said that he did not have permission to use the image, so that's his mistake. I did not get to see the derivative image before it was removed, so I can't say how much it was changed, but from the sounds of it, there was substantial work done to the image. If the offender had got permission to use the image as he should have, he may very well have been able to file a copyright for it as a derivative work with consent from the original author, in which case he would be well within his own rights to watermark it as such. Since he did not have this permission, copyright for a derivative work does not apply, but he probably doesn't have a firm grasp on copyright or he would not have used a copyrighted work to begin with. I would guess that he read somewhere that he can copyright a derivative work, but did not understand the whole process of doing so. Clearly, he has demonstrated a lack of knowledge regarding copyright, so rather than blasting the guy perhaps he could be educated in a positive way.

My main point is that I believe it's best to exercise patience with others rather than immediately burning them at the stake. There are a lot of good people out there that do dumb things in all aspects of life and there is usually little reason to over-react to the things they do. When politeness and kindness fail, then you can start to use other means, but I firmly believe that it's best to give people a chance first.

Why make an enemy when you could make a friend, at least that's what I teach my kids. The OP has someone out there who seemed to admire his work that now thinks he's a real piece of work instead, when a more understanding communication in private may have set things straight while fostering a fan of his work. I'm not perfect either, but I go into any potentially confrontational situation with the idea that I'll seek positive results for everyone rather than ignoring that others are people too.

curiosa des yeux wrote:
I thought I read that the "thief" had credited the photographer verbally next to the image, so his mistake was in not getting permission for use first. In that case, there is no plagiarism since he did not claim to produce the source material. It would be entirely a case about having permission to use the image.

Karl Johnston wrote:
Man..i think you should just stop, just stop. You are very misinformed

Here is the qoute I read:

We REMOVED some of our photos and ONE photo that was owned by 45SURF (the one we posted yesterday). Because some people don't clearly READ the comments that goes along with a photo, some "thought" I stole this image and claiming it was mine. On the image was clearly stating: Edited by (me).. And as comment with it, it clearly says, 45SURF was the OWNER and photographer of it. Some have noticed it, some didn't.

Hope you all can READ next time and don't keep on going with the talking, we STEAL and CLAIM images that are not ours!

Obviously, he did not have the right to do what he thinks, but it's also clear that he did not receive a polite email about the issue. Instead, I would guess that he got a very unpleasant email and I'm sure that no one here (rightly or not) would appreciate being called a thief point blank. He was wrong, but from the sounds of it thought he was OK because he had credited the photographer. If the above is accurate, which I don't have any reason to doubt, to call it plagiarism is inaccurate. It is a violation of copyright, but that's not the same thing.

Mike Kelcher wrote:
HJM Photography,

At least your work is good enough to attract such image thieves.  My images suck so much that nobody wants 'em.

I have images stolen from me on a regular basis and it's never my best work. In fact, the photos of mine that are stolen the most I don't even think are particularly all that good. They just provide good stock photos for certain types of companies that look to steal images a lot. One of the images on my blog of some girls at a bachelorette party is stolen at least 2-3 times a month and it's usually by limousine or VIP companies selling nightclub tickets, stuff like that. Trust me, rarely will your great work be stolen, it's usually the photos that make you say, "WTF? Why would someone want to steal THAT photo???"

HJM Photography wrote:
thoughts?

Yes, you should start by sending him a "Blister-Gram" suggesting that before he next removes someone's watermark, copyright notice, logo, or any other thing representing "copyright management information" that he have a read of 17 USC 1202 & 1203. End of story.

That does not even begin to address the creation, by him, of an unauthorised derivative work.

Studio36

photoimager wrote:
Since a watermark is in the actual paper the other person must be very clever to change it ............

You know, sometimes the meaning of words change as technology moves along. Most people don't get bent out of shape when you call that device you take pictures with a camera, even though the word camera actually means a vaulted room.

We all know what he meant when he called it a watermark.

Ok, I'm done, so I'm going to click a button (wait how can I do that when it's only an image on my screen) and then I'm going to close this window (what, my display has windows?)