InstaPic copyright violations -- anyone else? advice?

[patia]

I just discovered a whole bunch of my photos on a site called InstaPic. http://www.instpic.com/patia-stephens/ (Not all, but most of the photos on this page are mine.) They seem to be advertising them as free desktop wallpaper downloads. The photos were taken from my Flickr site in blatant violation of the copyright and all rights reserved notices on each and every page.

Has anyone else experienced the same thing with this site? Does anyone have any suggestions on how best to handle it?

I'm so furious right now I am wondering what legal remedies are available.

[jetrim]

Probably none. They're going to claim editorial use (which is NOT blatant violation of the copyright and all rights reserved notices). This site doesn't appear to be anything more than a link farm. It's picking images up via RSS or web crawling bot. It provides a link to the original location where the image was found, and did you look at the size of the images displayed? They're almost exclusively thumbnails. Couldn't find a single image big enough to make a wallpaper out of, even for an iphone screen. It indexed a number of my images, but not all BY FAR. Of those it did, they were never bigger than 250x250 pixel versions.

One of your images, is being served up right here and just linked to over there - no copyright violation at all because the image still resides where you put it - on the photography review server

Location: http://reviews.photographyreview.com.../picture-3.jpg

Best way to handle it? Take Scheister & Sheister attorneys at law off your speed dial, relax, and enjoy the extra exposure your work is getting...

[patia]

I know a thing or two about editorial use and this is NOT fair use. Legitimate publications are very careful to only use images with permission.

It's not extra exposure -- it's diluting my Google rankings and confusing the hard work I have put into building my body of work online. They have photos up to 640px -- plenty big enough for the clueless to download as desktop and mobile backgrounds. They have identified images that aren't mine as mine. Some of my photos are sized larger than they should be and look like crap. Not all of the images link to my original.

Turns out they're stealing images from PhotographyREVIEW galleries, too.

[jetrim]

I know a thing or two about editorial use and this is NOT fair use. Legitimate publications are very careful to only use images with permission.

With all due respect, bullish!t... I have too many professional friends locally who have had images "stolen" by such legitimate publications as The Miami Herald. No permission, no photo credit, nothing.

It's not extra exposure -- it's diluting my Google rankings and confusing the hard work I have put into building my body of work online. They have photos up to 640px -- plenty big enough for the clueless to download as desktop and mobile backgrounds. They have identified images that aren't mine as mine. Some of my photos are sized larger than they should be and look like crap. Not all of the images link to my original.

Turns out they're stealing images from PhotographyREVIEW galleries, too.

I would love to hear how they're diluting your google rankings, not that it's impossible, just don't understand how you came to this conclusion.

If you really believe this is causing you some sort of irreparable harm, and can show specific damages, you should immediately seek a copyright attorney. You do have all these images cataloged with the copyright office, right? Otherwise you won't be able to recover the attorney fees spent to enforce your copyright.

[Photo-John]

With all due respect, bullish!t...

That was unnecessary.

I've been digging through the site and I think they are walking a fine line. Essentially, they aren't doing anything different from Google Images. And key - they aren't saving any images to their own servers. On the other hand, they are presenting the material as content to be downloaded and they're doing it out of context. That is sleazy. But I think it would be tough to get a contingency lawyer to take that case and that's a good measure of how straightforward a legal issue is. Bottom line for me - what they are doing is wrong. Unfortunately, I'm not sure there's an easy solution. You could send them a DMCA takedown notice. That would be a start. You could also try to rally lots of photographers to talk about them and try to bring them down that way.

[jetrim]

John,
Didn't mean to piss you off, but we all know there is the law, and there is the reality. I do agree they're walking a fine line, and they are absolutely a sleazy operation, but aside from fist pounding in righteous indignation, there isn't a cost effective, timely way to effect change. Images are stolen tens of thousands of times each day, it's the cost of doing business and the only way to be sure your images aren't stolen is not to post them at all. That said, I've had images stolen by brick and mortar operations, and have far too many friends that have had images published without consent or credit, by "respectable" publications under the auspices of "editorial use". The reality of this working itself into a big payday, is pretty slim.

[monkey44]

So, what's this "editorial use" stuff ... I don't buy into editorial use ever for one of my images, and would immediately take it to the max on anyone that 'stole' an image I shot.

Copyright laws no longer require words or photos, or any other art to be "registered" to be owned ... if you wrote it or shot it, you own it. Period. Proper byline credit supercedes some areas of copyright law, but most often if any person or business makes money off any words or images and it doesn't own the rights, it's a pretty easy win in a court. Depends mostly on damages - is it worth your time, effort, and fees to go after a party that violates copyright? ... that's probably a bigger issue than the minimal use one site gets from your work.

On principle though, I'd never allow it without at least some $$ discussion and a cease and desist letter.