Yes, it is completely normal for my pictures to be stolen. No, I'm not happy about it. Why? And the widespread assumption that I through Copyright Violations I haven't been able to figure out how to get rich yet. Neither do others, by the way. Last night, however, it took my shoes off...
The theory is very simple: you can only Pictures on Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, YouTube, Vimeo, etcpp that you recorded yourself. Unfortunately, this very simple etiquette seems to be lost over time. And the copying scandal by the former Doctor zu Guttenberg is one of the nails in the coffin of copyright and its handling foreign feathers.
If I see a picture on Facebook that I know is of me, I draw the user's attention to it in a friendly email or comment. I usually harvest understanding and the image is replaced. I once had a case where a comment under a picture was deleted by the thief without comment. Then I wrote to Facebook because they were through the so-called Forum liability the first point of contact. Facebook provides an automated one for this purpose Intellectual Property Rights Violation Form available. Less than an hour and a half later, the reported image was deleted without comment.
Things look a little different on YouTube. At the Completing the Copyright Infringement Reporting Form I felt a little like the real one criminal. Unfortunately, the form does not provide a link to clearly clarify the ownership of the image. So it happened that I had to wait two days until a support email reached me and told me that they couldn't find any violation. I replied and another day later got a message that the video with my picture had been deleted.
Of course I wanted to check that – and then it took off my shoes. Am I GEMA? Should I now expect a shitstorm? 🙂
Conclusion: due to forum liability, copyright infringements only involve work for mere mortals. Nevertheless, I don't understand at all that others are adorning themselves with my feathers. However, I don't have the time to actively look for uses for my images. Hence my wish: don't steal other people's works.
You're always the bad guy if you don't give people what they want or want to see. And for 8 out of 10 users, you're the mean ass who spoils their fun, who shouldn't make such a fuss and who should be happy and grateful if people even want to see or hear your stupid pictures/films/songs, after all, they're only doing you a favor by spreading it, otherwise just don't go on the internet and don't put your stuff online, yadda-yadda, etc. pp.
Since arguing with guys like this is about as useful and fun as knocking steel nails into each other's knees, I'll forego it and ignore them or delete their comments. Not easy for thinking people, but hey, life is too short for that.
As usual (i.e. like with GEMA), Google is trying to smell like roses and wash its hands in innocence by pointing the finger at the stupid party fart. You'll have to go through that, I'm afraid.
Full agreement with your actions and full moral support.
It really can't be that the injured person is still being pilloried here. What a bad habit.
Greetings from me
PS: I'm in the same situation right now, but for a text
Beautiful new world ….
Well, what did he do with the photos? Was it just a slideshow or what? Did he claim the photos were of him?
Does it matter what he did with the photos?
At first I was really surprised by the message from YouTube that you can now see. However, only your rights were enforced here. and thus reference is made to the original work. The interested user can now view the original, provided it is published, and compensate the author for it.
Secondly, it shouldn't really be a problem if you enforce your copyright. This post shows that even as a legitimate author you somehow think that enforcement is "not so nice"... (sounds very strange, but I can't think of any more sensible words for it right now). And this shows me that copyright law needs reform. No abolition, please don't misunderstand me.
Additionally, another question. If I post the link to a blog post on Facebook, do I own the image displayed? So should I choose that no preview image is displayed? Somehow this question came up recently and I haven't found an answer to it yet... maybe someone knows something
The preview image is considered a quote and is therefore permitted. (No legal information!)
That would have been my interpretation too. Thanks. When you click on the image, it is not displayed within FB, but you are redirected to the original source.
Marc, that's an interesting question about the infringement of images in Facebook links.
I've always understood it to be that if I refer to a blog post by ) point out who actually took the photo, and b) I have (in the best case scenario) linked this work from the rights holder's website.
Of course, things will be different if I put the images on my site beforehand and then link them without mentioning the source.
That's how I understand it. But my gut feeling is certainly not a 100% indicator of right or wrong...
If I like a photographer's pictures and want to publish an article about them, I would always contact him briefly beforehand. It's usually not a problem to get one or two images for it. But there are also photographers who don't really want their portfolio to be presented in a blog. This can all be easily clarified beforehand.
Yes, that is certainly the best way.
But communication has become somewhat lost in our time, without wanting to initiate a fundamental discussion here...
What? How awesome! But now you are the nation's bogeyman who has YouTube videos blocked here 😉
Do you have a problem with being mentioned by name there?
If so, completely unfounded 😉
I don't think you're considered a bogeyman now, but rather a photographer who raised a completely natural objection.
And there aren't even any sanctions, warning costs or whatever. So a warning shot without consequences that no one can really blame you for.
Naming the author makes sense, but in this case???
Isn't YouTube discriminating by naming the author in the black image field? I suspect that unequal treatment is also prohibited under US law. The infringer may remain incognito, but the injured party will be outed by name!
Hence my “shoes taken off” 🙂
Stefan, relax. No normal thinking person now sees you as the bogeyman just because you represent your rights! I see the really tragic thing in the fact that we (have to) get used to such situations - and, also sadly: I for my part hardly put any pictures on the internet anymore - because of exactly such events (although I'm not forced to do mine either). to make a living from it).
When this topic was recently reported in Der Spiegel, I was simply horrified by the half-knowledge, impudence and intentional violation of the law that was commented on under the article and the lack of understanding of copyright on the Internet. I completely agree with you, but I don't see anything good for the future. Or the complete opposite club comes as SOPA etc., which of course wouldn't be the end all be all.
You're right, if you don't defend yourself you'll look stupid at some point... so I would do the same thing. 😉
I can fully understand that you are annoyed.
Large companies can easily get videos blocked if they claim content was used by them, and small users are neglected and can't do much about it. That's really not fair.
Greetings Klaus
That's funny. I wouldn't mind if my name was there.
“Youtube video blocked because the video belongs to Christoph Jahn.”
Cool 🙂 I don’t see that as a bogeyman. What I think is worse is that you had to ask again.
Best regards,
Christoph
[…] YouTube offers the option of defending yourself against copyright infringement via a web form. However, you must have a valid Google account. If YouTube agrees to a deletion, you can expect to be portrayed as a "bogeyman" by name. […]
[…] Hamburg photographer Stefan Groenveld also had to contact YouTube to prevent photos he took from being shown in other people's videos. You can find his post about it here. […]
[…] a band and then had a very tense email exchange with the manager. Shortly after, Stefan Groenveld blogged about stolen pictures on Facebook and YouTube, and a few minutes ago, […]
[…] As mentioned above, open source and CC licenses fundamentally relate precisely to the functioning existing copyright law and the creative person's right to determine their own work. Furthermore, it should hopefully be clear that copyright is about protecting intellectual property, which third parties may not simply "steal," no matter how easy that may seem, especially on the internet. And that there are extremely good reasons for preventing intellectual theft. Unfortunately, most people only realize this when their own works appear somewhere on the internet, preferably in a commercial form, in a third-party location. Then, all of a sudden, it's "Hey! What can I do? I don't want that!", even if the same person has used someone else's image here and someone else's text there for their PowerPoint presentation or blog post so many times before... In my opinion, it becomes truly worrying when authors, due to online "opinion-making," are already afraid of enforcing their rights (even in a very gentle way), as they might then be subjected to a shitstorm. This is precisely what photographer Stefan Groenveld describes, albeit with a wink, in his blog. [...]
[…] Photographer Stefan Groenveld reports in his blog that he had noticed that a photographic work he had created was publicly available on YouTube […]
Hi Stefan,
Having (your) pictures stolen is no more normal than fare evasion. In this respect I would like to contradict your introduction.
As far as YouTube's wording is concerned, there are different ways of looking at it. If they were sorry that the copyright infringement had occurred, they would probably remove the entry from the database entirely. But you have to take it as it is and then draw the conclusion "we would have liked to continue helping with the theft, but we weren't allowed to." The first time you hear it, you swallow. The second time you think that such a statement would be pretty clumsy in court. Who knows what it might be good for...
Peter
[…] YouTube has not yet been able to reach an agreement with GEMA on the amount of licensing fees. A photographer now reported the following in a blog post: "This video is available due to […]
[…] always find the right music for me, because I naturally want to use free music so that GEMA doesn't block my slideshow right away. If there's anyone among my readers who […]
[…] I'm often annoyed by copyright infringements and have had some funny experiences with them, so I've had this blog post in my hands for a long time. Thanks to Jan Böhmermann, it now seems […]