Copyright Infringement Reports (Review guidelines in post #1 before posting here)

Thanks, Lanny, for pointing this out. It does indeed appear to be one of Eric's series of Mulvane images, overlaid with a strange graphic, but still the same photo. I have contacted the MySpace account holder through the page, though I was unable to locate a name for the tour operator.

For those who don't know, I've been handling Eric's photo catalog since his death. Most of Eric's images are licensed through Corbis International, the stock photo agency. The royalties for all these images go to Eric's wife and two young sons. The Mulvane tornado continues to be one of the most widely-licensed and reproduced tornado images, as anyone in a bookstore this Christmas could see. As you can imagine, it provides a small but steady stream of income to the family and it is the one image, when stolen by a business or publication, that brings immediate attention from Corbis and their highly experienced lawyers. Corbis aggressively pursues unauthorized usage, not only for the money taken from them, but because Mulvane is a valuable property which they license and release in a strategic way over time to maintain and maximize value.

I don't bother with people who steal small JPGs and post them to their blogs or Flicker accounts. I did at first, but there's no end to it. Corbis could not care less about individual theft. However, a business or for-profit publication is another matter, entirely.

So the point of this post is to make people aware that Eric's photo catalog isn't being neglected, and his intellectual property rights are as important to his friends and family now as they were to him when he was alive. As with anyone's intellectual property, you have to ask permission to use or license it, via Corbis if you're a publication or a business, or with me if it's a non-profit usage or educational materials, which Eric always donated free of charge.

I know the overwhelming majority of Stormtrack members respect the property rights of other chasers the same as they wish for their own to be respected, but there's always a few people in any crowd, knowingly or not, who might seek to take advantage of a situation they misunderstand. They should not misunderstand this one.

Amos Magliocco
 
Copyright Issues

I really appreciate Amos writing what he did above. Even corrupt individuals likely will take a moment to reflect when they are stealing the intellectual property of a brilliant life cut short.

Sadly, digital editing has become incessant and changes enough details frequently to require careful review. Using an invisible watermark in your digital images (something you can place through Photoshop) is one way to get back your images legally.

While some have mentioned registering copyrighted material, again recall that simply by creating something US and international law grant you copyright without registering. Careful logs and imbedded time stamps within the digital information of your photos can be most helpful.

Last, consider hosting your images on sites that make it much more difficult to steal copyrighted material. While there are many out there, I will openly state I use Smugmug.Com which disables right-clicking and saving of photos in galleries. While this won't deter people willing to use PrntScrn button and pasting it into Photoshop, it does deter many from thefts.

For those of us who sell our photos casually (and lack the artistry of Eric Nguyen, Mike Hollingshead, etc.), you can still create online galleries that are reasonably safe and can even sell and license your photos through sites such as Smugmug.Com, Zazzle.Com, Lulu.Com...Look around. Definitely it is safer to use sites like these than Facebook, private website, etc.

For full disclosure: I do not work for or have any financial affiliation with any of the above sites. They are just those that I'm familiar with or use personally.
 
Was doing my "I'm bored" trawl for stray images of mine and I thought it'd be useful to Ctrl+C Ctrl+V all the copyright infringements I found for other chasers work (that I could recognize.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOQlvrgs124 (Hollingshead)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ckHWKOaq7c (Hollingshead)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRumhyMeqTM (Hollingshead)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8n0jM9XKlo (Nyugen) (Edwards) (Thorne)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWLsucX2ffw (Nyugen) (Holingshead)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSfm-safvfs (Hollingshead)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APOoL79Liro (Nyugen)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSfm-safvfs (Hollingshead)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8LDD0mp4wU (Hollingshead)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgPa3Z-CDCA (Hollingshead)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUaBUaJe09Y (Nyugen)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khLcpi2HptM (Hollingshead)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JowMqEQE0E8 (Hollingshead)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O36e2dTazzk (Hollingshead)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLTruOw9BtU (Hollingshead)
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/733203/theres_a_storm_a_comin/ (Hollingshead - though at least he wrote his own music!)
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/151905/katrina/ (Hollingshead)

Youtube's takedown process is pretty simple; if you have an account, just go to this page and fill in the info.
 
I think my favorite thing about the infringed videos, is when people make comments like "WOW great shot man" ....... and the infringer actually says "THANKS, IT WAS WILD!" lol Makes you think if some people actually have a brain....
 
IMO the "Hollingshead" reports are no longer necessary. Mike's made it very clear he's not interested in pursuing any of these cases.

As for youtube in general, seems a waste of time to come running to ST to post in this thread. Anyone who posts to youtube knows excatly what they're getting, and because it's never the authors who are on here lamenting the copyright infringements, I don't see why anyone else should bother either.

It's one thing to stumble upon a website where someone has "right-clicked" themselves to death with others' property. But posting every link on youtube where the authors themselves submit (and thereby offer) their material for public consumption, that's the author's problem.
 
IMO the "Hollingshead" reports are no longer necessary. Mike's made it very clear he's not interested in pursuing any of these cases.

He did? I missed that. I assumed since the third post in this thread is the Hol himself posting a link to an infringing Youtube video, he wouldn't mind the info.

As for youtube in general, seems a waste of time to come running to ST to post in this thread. Anyone who posts to youtube knows excatly what they're getting, and because it's never the authors who are on here lamenting the copyright infringements, I don't see why anyone else should bother either.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say, or if you just didn't bother to actually look at any of the links I posted. These photos were not posted to Youtube by the authors, they were posted by people who are misappropriating the imagery. Unless Mike and Eric at some point in their lives got together and decided to sit down and make a slew of cheesy slideshows of their photos mixed together with bad music and post them to Youtube, these videos are not related to any Youtube activity by either of them. No different than if I grabbed all your storm pictures off your blog and slung them into a slideshow and posted them to Youtube with the title "STORM PHOTOS I TOKK!!!". (Hey man, they were there. You should have known better.) You might be down with that, you might not, but you probably would be a bit confused if told you you knew what you were getting into when you signed up for that Youtube account you never signed up for.

In truth, with Youtube it's usually not a terribly big deal, especially if you don't sell imagery. But having 500,000 people view the video probably doesn't do much to help it's perceived rights managed value in the eyes of licensing clients. Or maybe it does, who knows. I've made more money from clients who found me on Flickr than I have from clients who found me through agencies. Personally, my main dig with the Youtube clips of my shots that show up from time to time is that nobody ever includes any links back to me. It doesn't do me any good if people don't know it's mine.

Anyhow, some authors will care, some won't. That's why this thread exists. I suppose we could change the title of the thread to "Copyright Infringement Reports. Also: Whining About the Existence of This Thread". ;) It is late-season SDS, after all.
 
He did? I missed that. I assumed since the third post in this thread is the Hol himself posting a link to an infringing Youtube video, he wouldn't mind the info.

I'm basing my opinion on personal emails and chat sessions Mike and I have had over the years, nothing more.


I'm not sure what you are trying to say, or if you just didn't bother to actually look at any of the links I posted. These photos were not posted to Youtube by the authors, they were posted by people who are misappropriating the imagery.

No, I didn't look at any of them. And as I mentioned, if the authors themselves weren't responsible for the youtube post, then by all means alert them.


In truth, with Youtube it's usually not a terribly big deal, especially if you don't sell imagery. But having 500,000 people view the video probably doesn't do much to help it's perceived rights managed value in the eyes of licensing clients. Or maybe it does, who knows.

I tend to agree with the former.


I've made more money from clients who found me on Flickr than I have from clients who found me through agencies. Personally, my main dig with the Youtube clips of my shots that show up from time to time is that nobody ever includes any links back to me. It doesn't do me any good if people don't know it's mine.

That's what I'm talking about with youtube. I understand if someone rips your stuff and then creates their own youtube clip with said material, hell that's even happened to me and I only do video captures online. But like you just said above, the youtube exposure does no good whatsoever if nobody knows who's work it is, or where to find it. And that's the rub; 99.9% of the time they don't care to know, they just want that quick, easy, free visual fix.


Anyhow, some authors will care, some won't. That's why this thread exists. I suppose we could change the title of the thread to "Copyright Infringement Reports. Also: Whining About the Existence of This Thread". ;) It is late-season SDS, after all.

I suppose we could, but I don't want to be responsible for any extra moderator work. I guess I'll live ;)
 
I met a man named Steve Painter while i was chasing storms in the Mississippi delta last year who seemed like a pretty cool guy. He was an off duty cop who seemed like he knew exactly what he was talking about. Now, dont get me wrong. Im not the kind to go run and tell on someone but i take pride in my work and wouldent copy someones elses stuff. For my own prides sake.

I got in touch with him and he sent me a link to his site. He appears to be a reputable photographer so i dont know why he would do this, but this photo doesnt look genuine to me. He claims this tornado is from Louise, MS where a report is listed in the SPC reports page. Though the photo caption reads SW of Isola.

http://www.photoreflect.com/pr3/orderpage.aspx?pi=0YRK0005000092&po=90

I wasnt able to copy and paste the photo here because he has it blocked, but it is the same tornado as this one.

tornado28april-funnelmed.jpg


Compare the two and tell me what you think. The funny thing is, hes actually attempting to sell it. There are two more photos in there from the same day which i highly doubt are legitimate either.

Anyway, it kinda jumped out at me and i figured id make a production about it. :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top