photo-stealing companies - gcode

The OP runs a blog, which generates advertising revenue. The success of blogs is arguably 100% dependent on exclusive and quality content, which helps drive traffic, which increases ad revenue. A fair tradeoff would have been attribution to the OP and a link to his site, which I’d bet he would have been okay with. To simply take the image and use it without consent lowers the value of the OP’s content, since people don’t need to visit his site to access it.

Like others have said it happens all day every day. Easy case to win, hard to collect. I would love to see GCode skip all that drama and at least step up and send him some traffic and maybe free gear for review (that would still be a win for them).

I love how people seem to be bent on trying to change the fact they used something which is not theirs.

Its an ethical issue on that companies part, and anyone associated with them.

What an amazing contribution to the conversation. Spot on amazing analogy as well.

Logic overload here guys…lol

Thank you for the explanation. A little more complicated than a mag lying on the ground.

Something tells me the latter part wasn’t directed as response to your post, hence the break.

Even if the amateur photographer doesn’t sell rights to images, it’s still his or her property and cannot be used by others without permission.

My employer doesn’t sell images for profit, but wins claims because the photos belong to the company and they are used without permission by others.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

When you say they “win claims”, are these actual legal filings in a court or just back and forth with an attorney?

Most get their credit and cash. A few high profile cases have had photographers winning more than a little cash.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/1-2-million-lawsuit-shouldnt-steal-photos-twitter/

Voodoo, has Gcode still not contacted you to offer you monetary compensation, or at least an apology?

How much did Glock charge you for using their gun in your photo? How much did the holster maker charge? Or do you think you can profit off of other folks products for your commercial ventures without paying licensing fees for such use?

Serious question. I worked for a well-known tech company and to use our products in similar photo shoots you had to pay licensing fees.

After they deleted the post I commented on, on their instagram page, I did not contact them again.

They were contacted in reference to this situation by others in the industry who understand this cannot be tolerated, I was CC’d and have yet to hear back.

Wow you are way out in left field.

Consumer law 101 for you.

The gun was purchased legally, therefore all rights to the image of that specific gun are those of the owner of that firearm.

The holster was purchased legally, therefore all rights to the image of that specific holster are those of the owner of that holster.

Follow the logic, it is self-explanatory.

That I honestly don’t know. I do know that fiscal compensation is rendered.

My gut tells me it doesn’t usually have to go as far as court because the offenders know they don’t have a leg to stand on. They company can prove where/when images originated.

But really I don’t know.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Essentially if you’re posting photos online, you should keep the full resolution unedited photo somewhere if you don’t watermark it.

To a more malicious IP thief, watermarking isn’t enough as you can crop or otherwise remove a small watermark without too much issue usually.

But if you need to prove you took the photo, you can take another photo in the same location (if the location is prominent in the photo and not just a white backdrop…), with the same subject (if it’s a person or distinct thing, like with the same Glock which has unique wear marks), or provide the full resolution image. Because contrary to CSI, there is no “enhance” button in Photoshop and most people have 50billion megapixel cameras now days, but anything bigger than 1920x1080 is too big for mainstream Internet sharing, and usually even that’s way too big. You can also post un-photoshoped images if the photo was cropped to prove it as well.

The easiest way though is if you crop and resize your photos before sharing and save the original without uploading it, which you’ll probably end up doing anyway.

I can do all of that, I keep all my originals with their exif in tact.

So you did not ask permission, and are completely ignorant of the licensing issues involved. You just decided you had a right to profit from their product because you bought one. But they do not have a right to-retweet, re-instagram, whatever an unmarked image they can reasonably believe was in the Public Domain since you chose not mark it. Gotcha.

Oh I have no doubt, was just responding to jpmuscle.

Not sure you understand what’s going on here…

No he’s completely lost. I don’t think he understands copyright law in the slightest.

Which tech company do you work for? Which products do you not allow people to take photos of if they own it?

What exactly is the licensing issue here?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk