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

[Jason Foster]

This kind of site is very common these days. It is all about flooding the internet, stolen work or not and getting high ranks on search engines. I had a similar site years ago steal a story I wrote and had posted on the net. It was part of a larger network of sites used to get optimum traffic (and ads..although that was as big back then) then sell the URL for it's high traffic volume.

As prolific of a problem as this is becoming lately, I have wondered if this is a tactic from one of those TV infomercials about make tens of thousands of dollars a month. Look around the auto pages, you'll find it a major problem there. Auto photos are stolen a huge amount likely because anything auto related tends to get a high number of hits.

 

[Shane Adams]

It's one thing to create a site and fill it full of stolen images. But at least get your info right. Half the captions are incorrect as to the where/when of those tornadoes. And the one shot of the May 3 wedge was ripped from the Oklahoma Climatological Survey team's website; they were just down the road from us.

WATERMARK WATERMARK WATERMARK...

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

WATERMARK WATERMARK WATERMARK...

Yeah and it would have to be the annoying across the middle variety. Here is how mine went evidently.

http://www.tornado-pictures.net/supercell33.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/153/353581422_b8b9072db9_o.jpg

CHOP!!!

And the brief time I had the across the middle variety, I had someone send me one of my own pictures showing me how easily they made the big faded in copyright across the middle vanish. While telling me how annoying they were while also being pointless.

And yes I realize mine are easily cropped off. They are really only on there for the occasional person that just grabs and posts on a blog or somewhere, with no intent to say they own them.

 

[Danny Neal]

I wouldn't make a deal out of it if he found my photos without a water mark from online, because I have no one to blame but myself for that. But to see him chopping them off is a whole 'nother story. I have no steaks on the fire with this one, but I would be interested in seeing how many pictures he chopped the original authors watermark off of.

 

[cedwards]

Mike, I would contact Google. It is against their terms of service to put ads on sites with illegal material. They are swift with canceling adsense accounts and when they do, you forfit all revenue that is in the account. The ban is for life of the owner, not just the website, so if this is the way he plans on making a living,... not for long.

 

[Scott Weberpal]

I wouldn't make a deal out of it if he found my photos without a water mark from online, because I have no one to blame but myself for that. But to see him chopping them off is a whole 'nother story. I have no steaks on the fire with this one, but I would be interested in seeing how many pictures he chopped the original authors watermark off of.

Which is why I almost exclusively put my watermark right in the middle of the image or near the main subject of the image, it makes chopping it off almost impossible.

 

[Jason Foster]

Which is why I almost exclusively put my watermark right in the middle of the image or near the main subject of the image, it makes chopping it off almost impossible.

Yeah...I've started doing the same...although not as consistently as I should. Granted I never post the best shots either....unless they are significantly reduced in resolution.

The chopping clearly shows intent to defraud (if that's the right legal jargon). I say time for a lawsuit!

 

[Shane Adams]

I put mine at the bottom because (1) I don't like the watermark on a still image to be too intrusive and (2) if the person does crop it off, it'd be really easy to prove it's the same image, thus proving the offender's intent to pass it off as their own = theft.

 

[john.sibley]

Speaking of video (which will now be over watermarked), Youtube complied with the DMCA takedown notice. This appeared on Jordan's video last night:

This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by John Sibley.

If he uploads it again, Youtube will delete his account. Per terms of service.

Oh what a lovely day to play in the rain!

 

[David Drummond]

If he uploads it again, Youtube will delete his account. Per terms of service.

No they won't. There are certain users I have repeatedly done takedowns on YouTube, their channel is full of other people's videos and they never go way. From what I can tell, if you have a highly viewed/subscribed channel, all they will do is slap your hand and take it down.

 

[cedwards]

It looks like the tornado-pictures.net site is gone. All content has been deleted. I don't know about any of the "related" sites he had up.

 

[john.sibley]

It's amazing what a little press attention does.
Good job calling out fake sites.

 

[David Drummond]

You guys might want to check out this channel. They subscribed to me the other day and I checked it out. Looks like nothing but other people's tornado video is the intent of the channel. I saw a number of videos on there I know who they belong to and it looks like more are added every day.

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheTornadoChannel

 

[David Drummond]

You guys might want to check out this channel. They subscribed to me the other day and I checked it out. Looks like nothing but other people's tornado video is the intent of the channel. I saw a number of videos on there I know who they belong to and it looks like more are added every day.

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheTornadoChannel

Whoever is SWIFT Films they have several of your vids on there. Also see some TVN stuff. Peggy and Melanie's awesome close up intercept is on there. Someone's Mulvane stuff.
Looks like some Tornado Video Classics stuff on there too.

 

[Adam Lucio]

What I find even more interesting [besides the fact their logo is an obvious ripoff of TWC] is the vehicle pictured at the bottom. WTF is that thing?! The tiv-3...dominator v2.0 or posermobile101?