Stolen Picture

May 28, 2009 By 715 Comments

So, this is the price we pay for indulging in social media, I guess.

I am thrilled to have reconnected with so many friends on Facebook.  One of them sent me this message yesterday:

Alright, so how’s this for random: I’m in the car, taking my wife for a check up, pass by a new grocery store and notice that they have a picture of you, your husband and two kids on the store front window. Life size. I kid you not. Will take a photo of it later today and send….

What you don’t know from this message: this college friend lives in the CZECH REPUBLIC.

Clearly, my family did NOT take a picture for any advertisements – either here or abroad. And, clearly, whoever hijacked the picture assumed no one would recognize us so far away. Hmmmm…wrong. :)

I’ll admit, there is an element of flattery (I think) to the whole thing.  But still, there is something creepy about knowing our family picture was stolen from one of my sites. This picture has been on my blog, used as a Christmas card and put on a few Ning Networking sites. It is also on my Facebook page (which is one of the reasons Justin recognized us) but my FB page is open only to friends.

Perplexing.

Here is the real picture:

img_1053

And here is our modeling debut in Prague.

czech1jpeg1

czech3jpeg

According to my friend, Justin, the translation reads:  “We will prepare and deliver your requests in two business days.”

Thanks, Justin for letting me know!

Interesting.  Bizarre. Flattering, I suppose.  But quite creepy.

This picture was taken by a friend of mine, Gina Kelly.  She does give me the rights to the pictures she has taken – and has authorized me to use them on my site, etc.

Your thoughts?

Updated, Saturday, June 6th.  Based on the comments I’m seeing, I feel compelled to clarify a few things. 1) I am the author of this site – Danielle.  Not my husband.  Quite a few comments have been directed to him. 2) I take FULL responsibillity for posting this picture with the incorrect resolution (read: too high).  Clearly, I am not a professional photographer and should have made the resolution smaller and/or watermarked the picture. 3) I used the incorrect term in one of my comments – the photographer did sign a release for me to use the pictures, and certainly, this does not mean I ‘own’ them. 4) While the photographer certainly may sell some of her pictures as stock, she ALWAYS has the subjects sign a model release.  I didn’t sign one for this picture, but would have if she had asked. 5) I posted this story because I think it is INTERESTING – what are the chances a friend who see this ad thousands of miles away? AND because I was SURPRISED it happend. Like many of you commenting, I wasn’t aware pictures could be taken.  If this makes me naive, so be it.  Now I know. And, for the record, I will not stop using pictures of my family on my site – I will however, change the format. 6) I am grateful to the greatest percentage of people who have commented with very interesting thoughts.  However, if you are part of the smaller percentage who are commenting only to say that a member of my family (or all of us) are ugly, I won’t be approving the comment.  I won’t allow it on my site.  I imagine you understand.  Thanks for stopping by!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Filed Under: A little bit of Everyday, Are you kidding me?, Featured Content, I'm just sayin' Tagged With: , , , ,
← Older Comments
Newer Comments →
  • lynsey

    Wow, that is crazy! Thanks for sharing your story…and what are the chances?! I suppose its cheaper than buying stock photos….but you and your family are gorgeous!

  • Mario

    1 – Nothing is private if it is in the internet.
    2 – Beautiful family (:

  • http://www.travelwriter.at/ Travelwriter

    The pic of you and your family is great. The story is astounding indeed!

  • http://www.creolewisdom.com creole wisdom

    Hi, like many others I found your story through NPR. I am an avid blogger, two, and have been featured by typepad and best buy because of my writing/photography.

    I don’t put watermarks on my work, or size down the resolution. I take the risk.

    However, I think using someone’s photo- despite them being posted on a blog, facebook, whatever is not ok. Permission needs to be asked first.

    Your family is beautiful, and it’s a great story to tell your family/friends. I would also be a bit concerned, too. Thankfully that shop owner seems reasonable.

  • BrentM

    Danielle – Thank you for the response. So, I think you’re correct in determining that your image was probably just grabbed from a Google image search. Unfortunately, you accidentally posted the hi-res image online. And it sounds like you’ve learned a valuable lesson.

    I think people need to calm down on the “Sue the pants off them!” mentality. As someone else mentioned, for some reason Americans are very litigious. As a photographer who has often has images “stolen” from my web site, it’s generally a simple matter of contacting the offender and informing them that they are using a copyrighted image without permission. I generally offer them the option of paying for the image’s use, but no one has ever taken me up on it, and I really don’t expect them to. They stop using the image, and I get back to my life. No big deal. I don’t post any hi-res images on my web site, so if someone steals a small image to use on their web site, I don’t get too hung up about it. My online images are not even large enough to make a decent 4×6″, so I don’t both with all kinds of security or anything. But I do embed my copyright info in the image metadata of my photos, which is something missing from the image you posted.

    Some people have commented on how it wasn’t possible to take your image and enlarge it to the size shown. I took a look at the hi-res image that was posted online, and I don’t see any reason why that couldn’t be blown up to the size shown in the photos. Any time you enlarge an image, you lose a little quality, but at a normal viewing distance, it still looks just fine. The ad in the window isn’t meant to be inspected like it’s in an art gallery, so it can be enlarged significantly.

    I recently read in another article that the store in question was surprised at the whole situation, and was stopping the use of this photo for their ad. Problem solved.

    Fred – I think it has been made pretty clear that the photographer did not sell the image.

  • http://cookieconversations.blogspot.com Annie

    You’ve got to be kidding!That is scary!

  • scum1

    You just have to be aware that when you post a photo on the net that you loose control of it. No harm no foul I say. I mean were you harmed in any way? I think not. Sue? Anyone who suggested that is one of the reasons America is screwed up. Don’t post anything on the net you don’t want stolen or used. If you don’t understand how the net works learn before jumping into it. I run a site and I take photos for it. I suspect people might use them on other sites but really it is not hurting me as I am not a professional and I don’t earn my living from my site. You and your family do not make your living off of your images so you really have not been harmed. If that is the worse thing that happens to you on the net then consider yourself lucky.

  • William full of Wonder

    Simply Amazing!
    I would agree with most who say that it *shouldn’t* happen, but also with those who say that it isn’t worth the trouble and expense of trying to sue. You are getting MORE attention by commenting about it on your blog, and there aren’t really damages. I doubt that there is much money to be had from the grocer, so I would (directly) seek a token amount for the photographer (with her permission) and a COPY OF THE FULL-SIZED POSTER!! Accept your fame, and YES, go pose in front of it if you can manage the vacation!
    (yes, *I* would make an agreement with the grocer, in which they can keep it up! There are no riches– take the small victories)

    I also agree that the Google image search is a likely source– your pic is on the first page for “happy family”, and is the best photo as far as lighting, clarity, simplicity, faces visible, etc.
    Blogs, twittermom, etc can be scraped for content. ANYTHING you view has ALREADY been downloaded to your computer, and can be saved, gotten from the cache, or captured in a screen-shot.

    If life sends you lemons make lemonade, because the cost of a lawsuit is more than the value of a lemon. :-D

    I read about this on Slashdot btw.

  • Eric

    Well, you do have a very nice looking family.

  • Tyrone

    Scum1 – the photographer that took this family photo does make their living from photography and deserves to be compensated if their work is being used to promote someone else’s business.

  • http://ringsideseat.blogspot.com Vierotchka

    By joining Facebook you accept its TOS and therefore explicitly accept that Facebook can use any of the photos you upload in any way Facebook wishes, including selling it to whomever they wish.

    With regard to high resolution versus small picture, when you upload a high resolution photo to Facebook, it is stored as such by Facebook which then posts a small version into your album. Therefore, Facebook has your high resolution photos which it can sell to whomever it wishes because you gave Facebook permission to do so as per the TOS.

  • Brien

    I’m sorry to hear that you’ve become the victim of anonymous internet “agro”. The big drawback to the instant information age is that people can blurt their pathologies without repercussion.

    You and your family look like professional models! (I’m sure that’s why they used your photo in the first place.)

    I love these sorts of serendipitous freak occurrence stories. Thanks for sharing!

  • Pingback: PGSurfer Block Watch » Blog Archive » Another online privacy reminder

  • http://theshadowart.com George (From The Jungle of WoW)

    Wow but you sure are pretty hot ;) So did you tell this to police or something?

  • NetWolf

    It’s a very nice picture, your family looks great, too bad you couldn’t just let them use it but get paid for it.

  • Pingback: Blogs 12 Connecticut » Blog Archive » WHAT YOU SEND INTO CYBERSPACE

  • Alena

    Hi Danielle, a friend of mine sent me a link to your story since I’m a Czech. I think that an advertising company which created the whole add stole the picture of your family and used it. That doesn’t make it any less appalling and you could sue them for the rights. This isn’t the first case when a Czech advertising company got in trouble over using people’s photographs. They were taken to court or a news station was called and they had to pay the people from the pictures some nice amounts of money. I know that being oversees would make it more complicated, just wanted to let you know.
    By the way, have you contacted the store? They’re selling Italian goods and have quite bad translation on their site. I can imagine that they’d be quite interested in knowing your story.
    Your family is very cute :)

  • http://24newsnow.com Marcus Harun

    ahaha! thats so random! crazy how that happened.

  • http://www.snooj.net Snooj

    If this were to happen to my spouse and I, it would be for a plastic surgery clinic. :-)

  • http://lindanapikoski.blogspot.com Linda

    I heard you on NPR saying that you have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in things on your site just as Pepsi or Alamo or other companies might on their web sites. However, the reasonable expectation of privacy under 4th amendment search and seizure law has nothing to do with the trademark law by which those companies have certain words and maybe logos protected.

    The crux of trademark law is that a trademark is protected against infringing uses in commerce when the trademark owner is already using it in commerce. You not only do not have a registered trademark of your family’s image the way, say, Alamo might own a trademark in Alamo, Alamo Rent A Car, the Alamo logo, etc., but your whole point was that you weren’t using your family pic in commerce at all.

    Neither does the “reasonable expectation of privacy” have anything to do with copyright or invasion of privacy matters in which celebrities may own their images, by which they profit/earn their living.

    Anyway, you’ve probably realized (along with dozens of commenters) that suing is not a good idea, if nothing else because the massive publicity and interviews you’ve done on nationwide radio and television have probably done away with any claim you had to wanting privacy — if there ever were any privacy claims to begin with when one has a public blog. Congrats on your increase in traffic and your (at least) fifteen minutes of fame! The small world factor is the cool part, so I think if the story’s made up it makes the fabricator way more soulless than anyone who used the image if the story is true. But I do believe the grocery store didn’t do anything illegal, and their ad agency likely didn’t either.

  • Tyrone

    Linda et al –

    Trademark law does not apply in anyway to this situation. Her family’s trademark was not violated, though the agency that provided the family photo has violated the law.

    Privacy is not an issue in this case as the subject of the photograph does not own the copyright of the photo she published in a public venue- in fact, the subject in this case may be guilty of copyright violation if she posted the photo online without the photographer’s consent.

    Anytime you take a photograph you own the intellectual copyright for the image you created and no one can use it without your permission. Anyone who uses it without permission is in violation of intellectual copyright and can be forced to compensate the copyright holder. Suing is a good idea – a great one actually – but must be done by the photographer. A message needs to be sent to those that steal other people’s work and use it without permission.

  • Danielle

    Tyrone ~ I do appreciate you clarifying trademark law vs copyright violation.
    I did have the photgrapher’s consent for posting the picture.

    Thanks for stopping by.

    Danielle

  • fred

    No offense Tyrone, but Linda said it better, first. It’s almost like you fully didn’t understand her post, since you repeated it as if she had said the exact opposite. Odd. Anyway…
    Linda, I think your post is the most succinct I’ve seen on this blog and perhaps on the topic. Not only is there nothing (successfully) actionable here from Danielle’s end, she has preemptively negated any sliver of action she might have had by talking about the case and putting herself forward in multiple venues and formats. Crying foul about privacy after doing national morning shows is a non-starter for sure.
    That said, I think Linda really nailed it when she spoke of the fabricator (if there is one) being more “soulless.” Someone here is indeed being less than honest. I’m not saying it’s Danielle, but I’m pretty sure it’s not the grocer or their external ad agency. That grocer seems to have financial means that would include easy, legal access to all the “happy family” photos they’d like. And they seem pretty nice to boot, with the cordial bottle of wine offer. Most companies would have gone into spokesrobot mode once this hit the networks and Yahoo and such.
    Again, it would be best not to go pig wrestling here. Everyone should take the high road out of this one before it gets embarrassing.
    :)
    Fred

  • Danielle

    Fred/Linda~

    I would imagine after this story has been vetted by hundreds of reputable news organizations around the world – the ‘authenticity’ of it would have been uncovered by now, if in fact it had been ‘made up’. The picture is clearly my family. And the ad is clearly in Prague. (At least it still was at the time that video was taken at the end of last week) I also imagine if the story was ‘fabricated’, Grazie would have cried foul very loudly instead of telling the Associated Press they were *already* in the process of redoing the campaign. From what I understand, they actually found out about this BEFORE the AP – (via my blog post and other social media) which is why the ‘process’ had begun before the media called. If the image was obtained legally, I am surprised the company would go to the expense of recreating the campaign – I imagine that isn’t cheap.

    I have never ONCE said, suggested, hinted at, or otherwise made mention of suing. Yes – there has been considerable chatter about it in the comments, but not from me. And, if I was to address the grocer about the image, it wouldn’t be on the grounds of ‘privacy’ but rather on the ownership of the image by my family (as it is US) and the photographer (as it is her work). If the photographer was to ‘sell’ that photo without my permission, and I found out about it, she would be paying me royalties, UNLESS I had signed a release. (This is NOT the case, as Gina does not sell stock photography) If I sold the picture without Gina’s consent, I would owe her.

    There are copyright laws (I can not speak to these in an international forum, but at least here in the US) that protect images like these. When my image is used for advertising, I do get paid for it – and while I don’t hold ‘celebrity’ status, I am compensated, as it is my face.

    My comments on NPR about having what I consider to be ‘reasonable expectations’ online in comparison to large companies was not in reference to their logos or trademarks, but rather to the photos they use in advertising and are therefore paying to utilize.

    The argument has been made that I should have ‘expected’ this to happen since I chose to put pictures online. I’m fine with debate.

    I do not think it is ‘ethical’ or legal to use photos that belong to someone else. That said, my family has not thrown tantrums, demanded compensation, or even asked that the ad be taken down. I have had no communication with Grazie. I have said many times that we are flattered they considered us a good fit to represent their brand.

    I originally posted about this story for 2 reasons: 1) I didn’t know photos COULD be taken (I’m fine if you believe me naive) – so I thought it would be interesting for the circle of mom-bloggers, mom entrepreneurs and such with whom I communicate to be aware and 2) What a small world! Social Media is shrinking our world – what are the chances an old friend from college (who I recently reconnected with on Facebook) would live in Prague and see the photo? I didn’t post to sue or make money.

    Thanks for stopping by and sharing your opinion.

    Danielle

  • http://www.5minutesformom.com Janice (5 Minutes for Mom)

    Danielle – your family is sooo beautiful, I am not surprised they “chose” you. LOL

    I post pics of my family regularly, but I do make them tiny files so they couldn’t be reused. (Not because I worry about it, but because otherwise my site would take too long to load.) :)

    Due to social media, the world sure is a tiny neighborhood. I think you should have just contacted them and asked them to pay you and the photographer! That would have been cheaper than them redoing the campaign – and you all looked so GREAT! :)

    And way to go for handling the negative comments graciously and calmly. {{{HUGS}}}

  • http://www.fazed.net Daniel

    That’s pretty damn funny dude, seriously, not sure if I’d be stoked or annoyed… probably stoked that someone thought I was attractive enough to advertise their business/annoyed I wasn’t getting cashed up for it! ;)

    Good work!

  • fred

    Danielle,

    Thanks for your response, in which you state “I have never ONCE said, suggested, hinted at, or otherwise made mention of suing.”

    Again, no offense intended because I truly believe the pace of social media may be a bit new to you, but on May 29th your wrote:

    “I want to get to the bottom of this….exploring options now.”

    as well as…

    “A reporter friend of mine told me they are ‘allowed’ to take anything off FB and MySpace, but not copyrighted pics off blogs. The other sticking pt – are they gaining financially via my family pic? I’m thinking so…hmmmm”

    If you’re not hinting out loud at legal action in both of those posts, then I guess you’re right. You didn’t use the word “sue.” Sigh.

    Hey. I’m not a lawyer. Don’t listen to me. Follow your heart. Anyone can be sued for anything.
    I just think we’re starting to hear a bit of double-speak.

    Good luck with however you play it.

    - Fred

  • Tyrone

    I think my previous post may have been misunderstood – I sometimes forget how completely tone and inflection are lost when posting. Additionally, what I said was more a reaction to what Linda said without the benefit of reading all of the previous posts.

    The comments posted here – such as Fred (where he accuses you of double-speak) and Linda’s (where she implies you fabricated this story to get more hits on your blog) say a whole lot more about the commenter than they do about you. Don’t feel like you have to defend yourself against every jaded crackpot that has access to the internet. Heck, they might even work for the advertising company in question and are just here to browbeat you into putting aside any action.

    The company that put together the ad has broken the law and they know it – if they were in the clear they would simply leave the ads up and ignore you and this story. You have made them nervous and perhaps they will think twice about stealing someone else’s work and using it to line their pockets.
    If they were honest business people, they would have at least made an attempt to compensate you or the photographer for the use of the image after the fact – if only to protect their reputation. At the very least they would have offered an amount that would have been cheaper than pulling all the life-size ads and replacing them with other (stolen?) happy family pics.

  • MaaaTT

    I’ve noticed a lot of people saying it’s creepy, unflattering, and that you should take action. Perhaps further down in the posting someone has already argued this, but let me: 1.) that’s simply amazing that this happened, the odds of them finding and deciding on the picture… the odds of a friend of yours seeing it in a foreign country… I mean, wow. But also, 2.) that so many people are saying it’s wrong. If it’s on the internet, it’s on the internet. Laws vary from country to counrty and I don’t think there is any precedent to try to even make a point about someone taking and printing an image that you posted to the international spectacle that is teh bloggins. Sure, it was widely used (for profit even) but now you have learned a little of the copyright laws and tricks to prevent it from happening in the future… … … if you don’t want it to. I MEAN, THAT’S SO AWESOME I WOULD BE JUST IMPRESSED ENOUGH TO SLAP MY KNEE AND CHALK THAT ONE UP TO SHEER LUCK. ha

  • http://flickr.com/espoir Eve

    Why not sue them?

  • Pingback: Lucky Me. at Extraordinary Mommy

  • Danielle

    Fred~

    Because I appreciate that you are truly being honest in your questioning, I am happy to reply again.

    Honestly, I am quite familiar with the pace of social media – as it is a large part of my daily work. I am also familiar with how easy it is to have words interpreted in a manner different than your original intent…..as is the case with your recent reply.

    These are the two quotes you pulled from my posts:

    “I want to get to the bottom of this….exploring options now.” (your interpretation – I am wondering if I can sue) My intent: I want to know how and where they got the picture. Also, I want to know what my rights are: do the copyright laws that protect me in the U.S. apply abroad – and therefore, can I, should I, request that they take it down? Or should I consider myself flattered and move on?

    The second quote:

    “A reporter friend of mine told me they are ‘allowed’ to take anything off FB and MySpace, but not copyrighted pics off blogs. The other sticking pt – are they gaining financially via my family pic? I’m thinking so…hmmmm” (Your interpretation again – I’m still thinking about suing) My intent: My understanding is that pictures can legally be taken offline if not used for financial gain – again – since they are using the picture for financial gain – can I legally request they remove it? AND at this point, I still had not spoken to the photographer as she was out of town…..if someone is using her work – what are the consequences?

    And finally, as far as I know – this is the end of the story – so there is no question as to how I am going to ‘play it’. I was told the grocer is re-doing the ad – his decision.

    I suppose one of the important things to consider about social media – that your intent can very easily be colored by the thoughts of the person receiving your message.

    Danielle

  • Nick W

    The understanding of copyright law by many of your commenters is incorrect. This comment is directed mainly towards them, but also towards you Danielle.

    You can not reproduce copyrighted work just because you are not profiting from it. The mere act of copying it can potentially diminish its value; that’s something that our copyright law was designed to protect copyright holders from.

    The only times you can legally reproduce a copyrighted work are: 1) The copyright has expired. 2) The copyright holder previously submitted the work to the public domain. 3) The copyright holder has granted you a license to use the work (directly or indirectly). and 4) The use of the work qualifies as fair use under the fair use doctrine. I’m surely missing a fringe case or two, but that’s pretty well it.

    Unless you explicitly state that you submit your work to the public domain, you haven’t. A blog is not public domain any more than ESPN is public domain. Whether it is fair use or not is entirely subjective but in this situation I guarantee you the courts would rule that this was not a fair use of a copyrighted work.

    Your reporter friend has the liberty of claiming fair use in reproducing a copyrighted work for “comment and criticism”, but an advertising agency does not.

    With regard to content posted on web sites and the like, you have two things at play: 1) Whether you own the copyright and 2) What you’ve agreed to do when submitting content to the website. In Facebook’s case you assert that all content you submit you own the rights to. You also agree to allow them to do pretty much whatever they want with your content – use it in their ads, plaster it on a billboard, sell it to other companies, etc. Even after submitting the content the copyright holder still holds the copyright, they have simply given Facebook a license to use it.

    At absolutely no point in this process would the content submitter have given permission to the general public to reproduce the work and nor did Facebook. If I take a picture from Facebook without their permission or the permission of the copyright holder, and my use doesn’t qualify under the fair use doctrine, then I will have violated US copyright law.

  • Danielle

    Nick~

    Thank you for explaining this…

    Danielle

  • http://www.science-art.com Britt Griswold

    You will actually have a better chance of protecting your image in Europe than in the US if the Copyright Office has its way. They have been pushing an amendment to US copyright law what gives a pass to people who use art and photos they find and can not trace the owner of. It has been know as the Orphaned Works Bill. It has failed twice due to active resistance of Artists and Photographers. It is soon to be introduced again. It was originally intended to help Libraries and archival organizations.

    But this Bill has morphed into a monster that will require any image you want to protect be registered with private for-profit registries, or you will lose all real leverage to discourage people from thieving images. They would get a slap on the wrist and pay fair market for the usage if found out. Unless you want to police the whole world, there is almost Zero chance you will ever find the user of your images (witness the uproar over your experience). The cost involved in finding and getting the thief to pay for the use is more than the payment. Proving intent to steal is almost impossible in the digital age, so no real threat of major punishment if this Bill passes.

    A lot of the free-use culture sees nothing wrong with this way behavior. But people like your professional photographer friend, artists and illustrators spend their work hours making images to put food on the table. Being unable to afford to protect or control the fruits of their labor is a death nell to their ability to feed their families. For private persons, becoming associated with some commercial, political, or social message they do not approve of becomes more of a danger when there are no effective laws for punishing appropriation of your likeness (or effective laws are gutted-Orphaned Works Bill!).

    The Grocery Store’s use of your image was probably worth $800-$1200 dollars in the commercial market, more if the use extended further. That is money you could have used for your family, or your photographer friend could have used for her business or family. The Grocery Store certainly paid money for the ad work and expects to make money from using it as well. They could have made their own image, but they did not want to send the time or pay the photographer, so they took yours instead…

  • vt

    Danielle,

    After reading your original post and most of the comments, I would say that there are two interesting stories here. The first one is that you experienced s/th, I guess others would by pay money for. No doubt you’ll enjoy many good moments by telling this story years from now.

    The other story is how cultures differ. As a little experiment, I told your story to a couple of people (all Europeans). While reactions did vary from “way cool” to “scary”, noone came up with the idea of legal action. A small percentage wondered about making money from it, but again – none mentioned sueing anybody.
    No when I read the comments above I ask myself: what is it in your culture or society that results in such a high percentage of (presumably) Americans to immediately shout for legal action?
    I mean, to me it seems really ridiculous, reading comments from folks that apparently do have zero knowledge of (for example facebook) legal terms nor international law. Obviously they shout for a lawyer first, while thinking and reading follow later (if ever).

    There are a lof of follow-up questions coming into my mind. I’ll leave it to you to think over it.
    And hey, you mentioned you’re flattered by having been picked for the ad campaign. I guess you also have the right to feel flattered for reacting to this story more savvy than many of my fellow posters above suggested.

    Too bad that store didn’t pay your family a trip to Prague -which is a beautiful city- instead of redoing their campaign…

    Cheers,
    vt

  • http://defendyourart.com Lisa Sage

    Britt is absolutely spot-on with her assessment of the harm the Orphan Works Act will cause families who use the internet to share photos with distant relatives and friends. In the text of the bill an ‘Orphan’ is any image who’s creator ‘failed’ to sign or mark the image and can not be found by searching the copyright office. How many parents are in the habit of signing and registering their photos?

    It’s a scary new world that makes it possible for someone to reach across the globe and violate your rights as a family here in the US. I think you’re handling it all incredibly well and I wish you and your lovely family the very best. ~Lisa

  • http://www.20minuten.ch Lorenz Hanselmann

    Dear Danielle,

    what a global world, we’re living in…

    A friend told me about your creepy story. I’m working for a newspaper in switzerland and would like to print it as an example and a warning for publishing personal data and pictures on the web.
    Thatfore I wanted to ask you if I might use your family photo for the article (I could steal it too, but I’m not shure anymore that you wouldn’t find out ;-) ).

    Thanks for a short reply.

    Lorenz

  • http://www.science-art.com Britt Griswold

    Even if you do mark your image, Photoshop can do wonders in talented hands. After a modest watermark is removed or cropped out, the image can travel through numerous hands ending up who knows where. Only the first person in that chain has broken the law, if something like the Orphaned Works Act is approved in the US.

  • Nick W

    @vt: Perhaps us Americans hold our principles in higher regard when compared to Europeans? If someone does you wrong, do you not want justice?

  • Tyrone

    Nick – Don’t you love all these people that ask non-photographers about an opinion on whether or not to sue? Why not ask photographers, artists, poets, etc on their opinion of what to do if their work is used without permission?

  • Nick W

    @Lorenz: So you want to, instead of admonishing the ones who will be breaking the the law, encourage those who are abiding by the law adjust their practices to deter thieves?

    This is like advising a grocer that they shouldn’t put their fresh apples out front where they can be stolen rather than encouraging people not to break the law and steal in the first place. The problem isn’t putting the apples where they can be stolen; the problem is the thieves stealing the apples.

    You will be admonishing the wrong party, and for that I resent you as you will only be exacerbating the problem by shifting responsibility from those that are breaking the law to the victim. Try telling a rape victim they shouldn’t have been so pretty and see how that goes.

    I don’t think this story is about privacy issues and how Daniel was wrong (which she wasn’t) to publish personal information on the internet; it’s about an advertising agency who unlawfully reproduced a copyrighted work and was caught despite significant odds. If you are indeed writing an article as you’ve described, I encourage you to find a more relevant subject matter.

  • Nick W

    @Tyrone: That’s another thing that irks me. I don’t see anywhere that Danielle has asked whether or not she should sue.

  • http://www.science-art.com Britt Griswold

    @Nick W: While I agree with the general thrust of your argument. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Lorenz taking the opportunity to let the clueless know what is going on out there and how to protect themselves in the the world as it currently exists. I would hope he/she would also write into the article about the state of the laws which are suppose to deter such thieving behavior (there are some changes afoot in Europe as well.) In the US there are potentially very stiff penalties to protect the art and photos of those who have jumped through the necessary hoops to gain official ability to utilize the maximum penalties. Those hoops discourage a lot of individuals, who instead rely on the possibility that their art *might be* properly registered as the deterrent of choice. This only works if there is a general belief that getting caught will have serious consequences.

    In practice, I think properly registering your image for maximum protection gets you a quick resolution of disputes, lawyer’s fees, fair compensation, and a cease and desist order, not the maximum penalties. But without those eye popping potential sums, the offenders would ignore your rights.

  • http://www.science-art.com Britt Griswold

    I believe Danielle said she was not interested in suing, a perfectly understandable decision not to complicate her life when it is not her livelihood on the line. The Grocer has stopped the use of the image. They did this readily because they knew they could be in real legal difficulty is my guess, especially in Europe. Other commenters have suggested that a suit would be a proper response.

  • vt

    Hello again,

    @Lisa: you call the use of a photo which was -unintentionally, but de facto- put into the public domain a violation of rights? C’mon, open your eyes! We live in a time where more personal rights and freedom are at stake than ever before. Globalization and electronic data highways have been coming at a pace that simply overburdens the majority of people today.
    Now what would be a proper reaction to this? A lot seem to be whishing for the old days, when you could sit on your veranda with your winchester, shooting (‘rightfully’) anyone having put a foot on your ground without your permission.
    While you still are allowed to own and foster your winchester, you aren’t allowed to take someone others live anymore. (Sidenote: this is where laywers jump in).

    I have good friends in the U.S. who talk upright and proud of their country; and among a lot of good and desireable values they mention in the same breath, there is one word that just makes their eyes shining a bit more: freedom.
    Unfortunately their tone gets a little meek when recent changes are brought up, that don’t fit too well into a culture of freedom. Take increase in public surveillance, tapping phone and mail communication, taxes spent for CIA, NSA, DHS etc. as examples.
    These increasing numbers mark the desperate attempt of a clueless administration to cope with a completely new generation of challenges. And the clueless citizen truly believes that these obvious cutdowns in personal rights and freedom are ok because they’re happening in her/his own interest? Wake up is all I can say! And get informed. Keep up with the technical revolution that is happening all around you. Do you actually know how easy it is for criminals to transport encrypted messages over the internet? Do you think more (tax) money for surveillance can be a remedy to this? If yes, you should talk to a mathematician or physicist.
    Our world has been changing, and Danielle just happened to become reminded of a tiny little fraction of this by the way she handled that pic of hers.

    Above I asked what would be a proper reaction to a rapidly changing world? There is no simple answer, and politicians today clearly have none. Personally, being “male, young and well-educated” plus working in a high-tech profession, I can just try to keep up with the pace in which my surrounding becomes more complex and information-loaded. I do know this is not a solution for the whole society, though.
    What I also do know is that politicians acting for the sake of acting, aiming at Orwell-like conditions won’t bring us any further.

    Life is not simple, and is becoming more complex every single day. Evolution has brought forward mankind. Mankind has put technology on the track of evolution. This development increased in speed and is just about to explode due to its exponential nature. While we all can benefit from many desireable achievements (e. g. latest results in medi-robotics) there is always the other side of the medal – the technology we created requires us to master it, and I mean that in more than one way.
    Speaking about sides of the medal: it is interesting to read comments here of people who rant about image “theft” while they in the same glimpse advise Danielle to “sue the pants off them”.
    Maybe that Czech store took pic from the public domain in order to prevent fees for a commercial pic. If so, the reason presumably was a form of greed. And greed is exactly what I would call the motivation for calling to “sue the pants off them”. At this point Nick, I politely ask you to think about principles and justice again and to the end.

    In a world that keeps increasingly changing, where technology has the potential of putting mankind on the sidetrack of evolution, a very near answer for us could be to keep up what has been defining mankind ever since: values, virtues, and ethics that make us superior to other animals on planet earth.

    Future lies in our own hands, demanding us to act. Every day and every minute.

    Whoever wants to deny that will find her- or himself calling more and more things “creepy” – which is one of the terms that is used most often in the comments above.

    Wake up!

    vt

  • http://www.science-art.com Britt Griswold

    @vt: Sorry vt, it seems you have drunk the free culture cool aid. I suggest you wake up and think about the incivility of using other people’s creations without their permission. I know there are millions of people out there desiring free materiel to make their own efforts more interesting. How do you feel about those who wan to make money from other peoples efforts with out paying them for their efforts. That thought pattern is very old, not new. and it goes by some ugly names…

  • Audrey

    WOW…that is why I am afraid to put pictures of myself and family on the web.

    Flattering, but it’s beyond creepy.

  • vt

    Hello,

    @Britt: You state there are million sof people out there “desiring free material to make their own efforts more interesting.” I cannot tell if this holds true or not, for I cannot judge about those who download others’ stuff and for what reason. I do see a web full of uploaded content though, and it is often rather easy to tell for which reasons. Among those craving for recognition, exhitionism and other forms of narcicism appear to rank rather high. Do you think a place like the internet works like this, that one league -let’s call them the exhibitionists- satisfy their needs while others are expected to obey “just watch, but don’t touch” rules, neglecting their own desires (for using or modifying other’s data)? There will always be some kind of equilibrium, and if one puts content to the public domain, then she or he has to accept the consequences.
    Several commenters have correctly mentioned how to handle data the proper way in order to mark it as copyrighted. In many cases this is a legitimate and necessary act. Getting upset over foreign use of data put to the public domain is pointless and a sign of unawareness.
    Danielle pointed out that she has learned at least two things from the story: that she should have resized her pic before putting it online, plus reading the legal terms of the online service she was using for free and where she uploaded her pic to.
    From my point of view she is one step ahead of many commenters: she has reflected, identified her mistake, and learned how to to make it better next time. This is what is called intelligent behaviour.

    I came here from dpreview.com forums, and don’t intend to return another time now since I added a few points to your discussion that noone other did bring up before and that seemed important to me.
    I mean no offense, but pink websites are not exactly my cup of tea.

    Farewell,
    vt

  • Jimmy

    That’s a really cute picture btw

← Older Comments
Newer Comments →