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 →
  • Nick W

    I’m really interested in the logic that this qualifies as a submission to the public domain. Is this web design public domain? How about your company’s? Can I go ahead an lift that, too? Just because it is publicly available does not mean it has been submitted to the public domain.

  • Nick W

    It is clear to me, vt, that you concept of public domain is the work being publicly available and able to be copied. Your understanding is absolutely dead wrong. Just because a work is publicly available without a copyright notice or watermark does not make it a work belonging to the public domain. Unless Danielle’s photographer explicitly states that she has submitted her photographs to the public domain – then they’re not in the public domain.

    There is no such thing as de-facto submission of a work to the public domain. This isn’t something that can be done unintentionally!

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

    @vt: It is very clear now that you think you are being a realist; you think you see the world as it really is; that if you can touch it on the web, it is yours to use as you wish; that there are now new rules that old fogies are just not willing to recognize.

    I would liken that to a teenager who has just been given a new car. You can drive it on the left or on the right side of the road. you can stop at read lights or not, you are making your own rules. It would behoove you to follow the commonly agreed upon rules of the road, or someone will get hurt. There are reasons for rules (most rules). There are also good reasons for protecting the property and creative efforts of individuals. Those without the ability to build and protect some personal possessions and wealth are called slaves and surfs. Is that how you see the artists and photographers who’s creations you are willing to take without permission or compensation? You do indeed seem to had serious misconceptions about the rules of the road for Public Domain.

  • Matt Simons

    Danielle,

    I just saw this thru LinkedIn. My company has been sued for doing this before. Claim was north of $1M and we had to cease the advertisement. Good luck.

    Matt

  • Sissel, from Norway

    Hello!

    I’m working with advertising myself – and often we use pictures like this, just for layout -and of course because it is a picture who is large enough, and I think it COULD be forgotten that it was only for that purpose, and then they print it. Many times, private photos like yours is more “alive” than the photos you can by.How would you react if they had ask you to use it, and get you money for it? I’m just curiose, I have never deard to asked someone yet.

  • Samantha

    Thats crazy!

    I read an article about it, and now I think I know where someone got a hold of it.

    You you go to Google, and click the “images”

    link, and then you’ll see “any size” near the top right corner.

    click it, and then click “Extra Large”

    then, type in “Happy Family” and theh “Search images” you’ll then see your family on the first page of google, so someone must of picked the best picture on the first page and put it on a billboard! :)

    Your Welcome!

    http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&um=1&sa=1&q=happy+family&btnG=Search+images&aq=f&oq=

  • Danielle

    Thank you, Samantha. I am aware our picture still appears, despite having been deleted from the site where it was posted. (Of course, that begs the questions – how do you get down? Can you?)

    In previous searches under ‘happy family’, the picture appears, but links also to my site (this post in particular) and mentions a copyright. Also – that photo – while ‘large’ in resolution, should not have been large enough to be increased to life size without some additional work and doctoring – at least that is what I have been told.

    I appreciate your post.

  • http://www.brushdragon.com Shaun

    I think this is why my wife was opposed to having a blog. I know from my own experience of being an illustrator, that this is too common in art. A family photo though, that is far more personal. As long as it stays in the creepy realm and not the dangerous realm…I think this is going to become more common sadly. Keep your spirits up, you have a lot of supporters!

  • pro photo

    Hi Danielle,

    You wrote:
    ————
    “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)”
    ————

    FYI: Gina Kelly currently has 438 stock images for sale through Alamy, one of the largest stock agencies. Most mid-range photographers tend to sell through multiple agencies to maximize profit, so it is not unreasonable to think she may have other accounts not as easily found.

    This is going around in circles. Your best bet is to contact the Czech company. Their agency may have bought it legitimately somewhere, and they would be able to prove it in matter of minutes with an invoice. If so, you have recourse against the photographer. If they didn’t buy it, you have recourse against them.

    You wrote:
    ————
    ” Also – that photo – while ‘large’ in resolution, should not have been large enough to be increased to life size without some additional work and doctoring – at least that is what I have been told. ”
    ————

    There is no mystery there. The photo was taken with a CANON EOS 30D, max resolution of 3504 x 2336. That’s the same resolution as your photo. It probably needed some careful upscaling and processing, but the results on the window show it clearly was big enough to be printed that large. ;)

  • Reggie

    The same thing happened to a friend of mine, but not as crazy. A photograph was taken of her and used in a magazine, with the photographers concent. Then a mutual friend was in a club in Tulsa, Ok (about 1500 miles away) and saw a 20ft tall poster of her along the back wall. The photographer never gave concent to the club to use the image. Not as impressive but still creepy.

  • Pingback: You Never Know Where Your Online Photos May End Up - Digital Photography Tips and Techniques

  • Danielle

    ProPhoto/Zagg – I appreciate your note – but want to clarify again – there are TWO Gina Kelly photographers – the one you mention – is NOT the Gina Kelly who took my pictures.

    I won’t argue with you about the max resolution, but since I have had a converstation specifically about this topic with Gina, and I trust her implicitly, I do have to mention that Gina did not provide me with the largest resolution of the picture – she still has that stored in her studio.

    Thanks,

    Danielle

  • Sarah

    This reminds me of that commercial where this kid is walking out of a school with her friend and someone says hello to her by name. She thinks it is cool, then realizes that everyone from the cool guy to the creepy weirdo recognizes her. The message is that you should not post pictures you don’t want others to see, or use because once they’re out there you can’t take them down. My point is, copyright or not, if you put it out there, you should expect for others use it. If you do not want to fall victim of someone using your picture without your permission, then don’t put it out there.

  • Mick Walsh

    Yes, sue the guy in Praque… you’ll not get far, waste money and time and will quickly realize that the world you live in is not the be all and end all of how humans live. If a poor family in India liked your photo and hung it on the wall to help them be more popular with the neighbors would you sue them too… realize that your imperialistic capitalism stops at the US border. As soon as the world realizes this it will be a much more pleasant place to live in.

  • Ahhh

    You guys are a good looking group. Great story!

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

    @Mick Walsh Re:” realize that your imperialistic capitalism stops at the US border.” – Does that mean that if I can get your work product for free, I can sell it’s use and keep all profits for myself? You will not object, right?

  • Nick W

    @Mike Walsh: Apparently you’ve never heard of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Contracting parties include the US, Czech Republic, and about 50 other countries.

    In reality, our imperialistic views are shared by many countries that have agreed that it, in fact, does NOT stop at our borders (or their borders).

    Do you have any more nonsense to spew at us?

  • Neucky

    WOW – this is too crazy/weird/creepy/funny. I don’t what else to say but glad you have an old college friend in the Czech Republic! It certainly makes for a good story. We live in such a small world.

  • http://intelligenceisacurse.com/index.html/blog/ Tellie

    That is weird. And strange. And interesting. And creepy.

  • Whitney

    WOW. I, personally, would sue. Hard economic times…you may as well go ahead and get the money you deserve for that picture. Very cute family!!

  • http://www.AblesAntics.blogspot.com Marcy Able

    wow, a friend just emailed this story to me. I agree that is pretty creepy. How bizarre to find a life size pic of you in Czech Republic. I’m naive too – how do you change the resolution setting as you had mentioned?

  • http://writer2writer.com Cheryl Wright

    The person who said it’s not theft unless you add a note re copyright is WRONG!

    The minute you write or photograph something it’s covered by copyright.

    Unless you explicitly signed a release for the photographer to sell your photograph to a marketing company etc., then they can’t legally do it. If you had the photos taken for your personal use (i.e. as a family photo – which I’m guessing you did), they have no legal rights to sell it. Anywhere.

    If it were me, I’d definitely be taking legal action.

    I’m a writer, and have been plaguarized three times. I threatened the person (yes, the same one each time!) with legal action, and the problem was rectified.

    Copyright laws are world-wide, so it doesn’t matter where the photo was taken, or where it’s published – it’s still covered.

    If it were my kids (or grandkids), I’d want it removed.

    For the sake of writers and photographers the world over, I hope you take the appropriate action. (Because doing nothing sends the wrong message to plaguarizers.)

  • fred

    Cheryl, no offense but you claim to know about copyright law because you’re a writer who has been “plaguarized three times.”

    It’s `plagiarized.’

    That aside, it’s nice to see this (online borrowing/”stealing”) has all gone away somewhat quietly. It should have much earlier because it happens thousands of times a day, everyday, online. This case was only different because it happened in the exotic locale of the Czech Republic, which isn’t exotic at all, which is the point.

    Cheers Danielle!

  • Pingback: Did you know? Images can be stolen from the web » . . . Holly Anne Photography . . . {artistic lifestyle photography}

  • http://xpicturesque.deviantart.com Ellen

    This is nuts… it makes me wonders what photos of mine are just running around all over the world…

  • Eric

    Nothing surprising. If one were to read the fine print when accepting the rules and regulations of most sites like FB, you would learn that all data we post on said sites is their property, and they can sell it to anyone who might want it, such as survey companies.

  • http://www.storyofmylife.com/antje antje wilsch

    no kidding, and many of them do assert control…. this is one thing our users told us quickly and we learned when we launched 2 years ago – user data is the user’s, not ours….. !

  • Christian

    Danielle,
    i just saw your family picture on a restaurant lunch advertisement in Santiago, Chile.
    i read the news long ago and i found amusing that i saw it today around the corner.

    Chris

  • Pingback: Are Your Kids Too Cute To Be Online?

  • bill

    I’ve scrolled through several of the comments and have yet to see anyone mention the website listed on the ad http://www.grazie.cz/ . I opened it up and it appears to be a food delivery service. I’d assume it would be a local thing, which makes me wonder what it was doing in Santiago, Chile as well (according to a july 26th post). It would seem that either an ad agency has claimed you’re picture and is usinjg it worldwide, or someone in Europe and someone in South America both had the same idea and stole the same image from the internet for an ad.

    Crazy world we live in. I would contact the food delivery service and try and found out who made the ad for them and go from there.

  • Danielle

    Hey Bill – I really appreciate your comment. Yes, Grazie is a high-end grocery store – they deliver food to customers who order. They also have offices in Great Britian and in Italy. Our picture has been taken down. The store owners told the Associated Press they began the process of redoing the ad as soon as they discovered we were a ‘real family’ :) As for the Santiago comment – I have no way of verifying that – so many comments are posted anonymously. What made this situation especially unique was not only that the picture was stolen, but that we found out and were sent pictures as proof.

    Thanks again, Danielle

  • Pingback: Unathourised Use | Vancouver Newbie

  • http://www.madebymartine.com Martine

    Wow, I would really like it when someone would use my pic in this way. But I can imagine your surprize! Perhaps you can contact the story and send them a bill for your “modelingwork” and of course for the royalties/copyrights of the photographer? Best wishes from Holland, x Martine

  • http://adsavvy.org vito

  • Pingback: Family Christmas Photo Appears in Czech Ad | Photography & Design Blog

  • meeme

    MAN U IS FIT !!! FIT I TELL YA !!

  • Pingback: Photo volée : un des risques du web 2.0 « Synchronism Blog

  • http://www.ibibo.com/erikachristensenlnude Doonnepay
  • no one

    Send them a bill!

  • http://www.bellmusicproductions.com Linda Bell

    My husband stumbled onto an ad for “Hot Singles in Your Area” with MY Facebook profile photo on it! Thank goodness we have a solid, trusting relationship, because if he was the insecure/suspicious type, it could have ruined our marriage! (I found a setting on FB that you can click to prevent this from happening – who knew?! The default setting allows them to sell/use your images.) I suppose I could have found it flattering, but it was just tooooo CREEPY!

  • Pingback: Violation of Privacy: The New Ways of Target Marketing | The Adventures of Graduate School

  • Pingback: I have a fourth grader? | Single Mom Seeking

  • Pingback: Surf On Over | Such the Spot

  • Pingback: Surf On Over | Such the Spot

  • http://metropolitanmama.net Stephanie

    I think I may have already commented on this post way back when, but Darcie of Such the Spot recently linked to it again so I thought I’d say…you have a great-looking family! I’m surprised modeling agencies haven’t been knocking down your door, in fact. ;)

  • Pingback: Kid fun, adult snack & Frankie-poo » Babe of my Heart

  • http://deniseisrundmt.com/2009/12/30/skating-thin-ice/ Run DMT

    Unbelievable! I didn’t read all 646 comments, but based on what you ETA, I believe you may have addressed their concerns/comments. Thank goodness it was just an advertisement and not a kiddie porn site. That’s my biggest fear!

    I don’t know if changing the resolution or watermarking the image would make a difference. I think if a creep wanted to steal your image, he/she would steal it regardless. I mean, they edited out the background of your photo. Who’s to say the creep wouldn’t edit out your watermark?

    Since we all continue to post images, prayer seems like our best option!

  • http://pumpkinseedphoto.blogspot.com Alisha J

    Obviously, you have a beautiful family (or else those people wouldn’t have stolen your image!). So I don’t know why anyone would comment otherwise?!? You have to look over some people. This is a horrible thing to happen to anyone! It’s such an invasion of your privacy! And how it could happen, is just CRAZY!! When I first started photographing, I uploaded images in full resolution, so there’s NO telling how many if my son’s & daughter’s images are somewhere in other parts of the world!!!??? WOW! Something to really think about!

  • http://sneakymommablogdesign.blogspot.com Jill

    Thank you so much for sharing your story! What a crazy thing to have happened to your photo. No doubt, several of us bloggers are uploading photos to our blog without even thinking about the resolution. I know I used to!
    I linked to this post on my blog today. I hope that my readers find it as helpful as I did. :)

  • http://sneakymommablogdesign.blogspot.com Jill
← Older Comments
Newer Comments →