Stolen Image

[Afasoas]

I'm properly incensed. An image I published with a watermark and clear statement of copyright with intact EXIF data was stolen, stripped of watermark, uploaded to imgur.com and then used in a context that could be seen as defamatory to the person in it.

Somewhere along the line the EXIF data was removed.
I have written to imgur.com asking them to delete the image immediately. Gallingly imgur.com appear encourage people to download copies of the image.

I don't think the culprit realises there is a principal at stake, but my time and talent was used in taking and processing that photograph. It's not something to be stolen and cheapened. I also feel I have a duty to protect my clients.

I wouldn't post images at all, knowing the nature of the internet and how easily work is copied/stolen/reproduced, but it's important that I do publish my work in order to raise my profile and find future paying clients.

Has anyone had any similar experiences?
How does this work with the enterprise reform act, now that I have an "orphan work" out there?

[Pedal Castro]

Use bigger watermarks through the centre of the image. Even then I have had images ripped off from other sites that have paid a licence for use and therefore didn't have a watermark on. I tend contact the infringers asking them how long they are likely to want to display the image for so I can prepare their invoice. They tend to then remove it pretty quickly, sometimes with apologies, usually without a word of reply at all.

[Charlotte]

Has anyone had any similar experiences?

Yes, a number of times.  Yesterday, the Telegraph used two of my photographs in the online Telegraph piece as below:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/10409136/Felt-vaginas-confidence-boosters-and-lots-of-affirmation-a-feminism-conference-in-2013-who-actually-attends.html

The photographs were originally published by myself on this Flickr account: https://secure.flickr.com/people/feminisminlondon/  I licensed all the images as Creative Commons (attribution, non-commercial share-alike) and included on the profile page contact details for commercial licensing, as well as a link back to my site.

I've just got off the phone to the Telegraph's online photo editor to resolve the issue.  I told him that I was delighted they liked my images, but that they seem to have neglected to ask permission to use them.  He opened at £25 per image for two uses and we eventually settled on £100 for three online uses, one of DSCF3551 and two of DSCF3007. It's not a king's ransom, but I asked a friend who regularly works for the Telegraph and £40 per image is about right for online use.

Although it'll be a week or two before I see any cash, the Telegraph changed the attribution from " FEMINISM IN LONDON 2013 FLICKR" to “Charlotte Barnes” within moments of the telephone call.

[clarion]

Good.  While I am pleased by the Telegraph giving publicity to important femnist events, they should definitely be paying for the image rights.

[Afasoas]

The subtle distinction here is that the image is now hosted by a third party imgur.com - who have thus far ignored my email telling them the person who submitted had no right to do so.

I don't really want them to pay for their use of the image. I want them to remove it. Particularly as their hosting it effectively makes it an orphan work. (Seems to be the entire point of the site).

As imgur is based in San Francisco, if I do invoice them and then proceed through the small claims court, will they be answerable?

[Afasoas]

Scrub that.

It's been removed. Thank goodness.
http://imgur.com/HWV9a6u