Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is there a "use of photos" legal notice on jp.net?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is there a "use of photos" legal notice on jp.net?

    I'm talking something like this:
    http://www.airliners.net/usephotos/

    There's a company using two of my photos which I'm assuming they've found off this website (one of the photos isn't on a.net) without my consent. They've used them on their website, www.denverairconnection.com (top thumbnail and bottom thumbnail, left side), as well as on two brochures they were passing out at an airshow on saturday (I have copies of both).

    I'm not sure if I have the resources to fight it if jp.net doesn't have the legal usage policy b/c it would be alot harder to prove that this site isn't considered public domain.



  • #2
    No matter if Jp has that or not, all the photos have a copyright at the bottom of them. I would seriously talk to a copyright lawyer. A friend of mine here in Western New York found New York State using some of his photos (not aircraft) and he has hit the proverbial jackpot. It is going to end up costing the state $250,000 - 300,000 to settle the matter, and yes, those are the right amount of zeros.

    Also, if you haven't spoken to them about it yet, I wouldn't. This all be fairly quiet until you decide to do something. If they are not caught "red handed" it will be hard to fight.

    Don't let them plead ignorance, you need to get something for your work. You have made photography a profession and something like this was bound to happen eventually.
    Wayne Dippold

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by eagle334
      No matter if Jp has that or not, all the photos have a copyright at the bottom of them. I would seriously talk to a copyright lawyer. A friend of mine here in Western New York found New York State using some of his photos (not aircraft) and he has hit the proverbial jackpot. It is going to end up costing the state $250,000 - 300,000 to settle the matter, and yes, those are the right amount of zeros.

      Also, if you haven't spoken to them about it yet, I wouldn't. This all be fairly quiet until you decide to do something. If they are not caught "red handed" it will be hard to fight.

      Don't let them plead ignorance, you need to get something for your work. You have made photography a profession and something like this was bound to happen eventually.
      I've definetly caught them "red handed" I have the brochures sitting next to me with my photos there. I did leave them a nice voicemail on the matter, I'm only hoping to get a couple hundred bucks out of this especially since I'd like to keep my contacts open with them.


      Comment


      • #4
        exactly why I'm glad they stepped up with the copy right on the pics.

        I would contact their marketing or legal department. I've read threads on other forums where photogs have caught companies using thier photos off the net and will charge them 2-3 times their normal usage fee.

        I would let them know those 2 pics are yours and you get paid so much for picture. You can also let them know that you have 2 of the brochures as evidence and will proceed to Small Claims court if this isn't settled.

        Just got done reading one post where the company didn't show up in court but did have to pay, even if it did take 2 months.

        Comment


        • #5
          I think that what can make a difference isn't whether jp.net has a legal use policy but whether you registered your photos with the US copyright office. You have to register before you can sue (if it comes to that), but unless your photos were already registered before the infringement of copyright took place you will face limitations in what you are entitled to by way of compensation. See http://www.copyright.gov.


          Comment


          • #6
            Yes, we do:

            http://www.jetphotos.net/photousage/

            Originally posted by kukkudrill
            I think that what can make a difference isn't whether jp.net has a legal use policy but whether you registered your photos with the US copyright office. You have to register before you can sue (if it comes to that), but unless your photos were already registered before the infringement of copyright took place you will face limitations in what you are entitled to by way of compensation. See http://www.copyright.gov.
            Everything you just wrote is unilaterally untrue.
            Trump is an idiot!
            Vote Democrats!!

            Comment


            • #7
              Awesome Chris thanks a bunch for that.

              As a sidenote, you get my e-mail?


              Comment


              • #8
                Pretty cool Chris, to know that the photos are protected by the site.
                Inactive from May 1 2009.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I wouldn't go legally ballistic on them yet, try and settle it "politely" first

                  I'd say it wasn't their anyways, probably whoever they contracted to do the website just nabbed them from here and hoped no one would notice.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I sometimes get aviation news from TAKEOFF.NU
                    I know one of the editors from the Aviation news Website.
                    One day he said that he had just saved one of the photos from Jetphotos. Its the photo below. It happened way before the watermarks got intergrated. Anyway I said to him, its okey, but you might want to include the photographers name or source.
                    After two days, I saw the article from the website, the Editor used it without any information who took that photo, Although I have mentioned it to him that he should include it.

                    [photoid=191300]

                    I just checked the article before this post. It seems that it has been taken down. Atleast the photo is gone.



                    Edit: Btw, Does the photo look like crap to you ? I mean when it was uploaded without the watermark, it was the perfect shot of this image, now with the watermark, which I think it looks like this, There's alot of compression on the photo now .. Please check it on your own to verify this, either that or I need some glasses. It looks wierd on my screen.
                    Inactive from May 1 2009.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      looks a little compressed to me.


                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by MaxPower
                        Edit: Btw, Does the photo look like crap to you ? I mean when it was uploaded without the watermark, it was the perfect shot of this image, now with the watermark, which I think it looks like this, There's alot of compression on the photo now .. Please check it on your own to verify this, either that or I need some glasses. It looks wierd on my screen.
                        It does look like theres a fair amount of compression on my screen as well......
                        Canon 20D & BG-E2 Grip
                        EF 50mm 1.4 USM
                        EF-S 18-55mm
                        EF 28-135mm IS USM
                        EF 70-200mm f4L
                        EF 100-400L IS
                        1.4X II Teleconverter
                        Canon 420EX Speedlite
                        Canon 430EX Speedlite
                        Manfrotto Tripod and Monopod

                        David Wilson | Through the Fence Photography



                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by MaxPower

                          Edit: Btw, Does the photo look like crap to you ? I mean when it was uploaded without the watermark, it was the perfect shot of this image, now with the watermark, which I think it looks like this, There's alot of compression on the photo now.
                          I think the watermarks are terrible. I mean, its great that the site is offering it, but I think it ruins so many nice pictures. I can understand why some people may add them, but for me personally, this is a hobby and I will never be cluttering my shots with a silly watermark.
                          DFW Tower.com

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by gdg9
                            I think the watermarks are terrible. I mean, its great that the site is offering it, but I think it ruins so many nice pictures. I can understand why some people may add them, but for me personally, this is a hobby and I will never be cluttering my shots with a silly watermark.
                            AMEN AMEN AMEN I SAY TO YOU! I will NEVER watermark my photos for this reason. They just look retarded and take away from the beauty of the picture.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Crism
                              AMEN AMEN AMEN I SAY TO YOU! I will NEVER watermark my photos for this reason. They just look retarded and take away from the beauty of the picture.
                              Bad Guy Mode,....

                              Why lose out on money when someone steals pictures from the DB and doesn't offer you payment or even credit for the shot? Sure it's only a hobby, but why not let it open to something more if you get enough demand for your work?

                              Can I steal your camera and lenes seeing it's just a hobby

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X