Photographers - Let's Educate Users About Correct Image Usage
Image © Diane Macdonald. All Rights Reserved.
Fellow photographers, are you frustrated with the level of image plagiarism and copyright infringement on Steemit? It's a serious problem on here, as I'm sure you will agree. In the end, it is going to affect us all in one way or another. Images are being grabbed from the web with no thoughts to the rights of the photographer who owns the copyright to those images. No amount of linking to a source or image credit pays the photographer's bills. And what's more – usage on Steemit is considered commercial usage, so if a webcrawler from one of the agencies comes across those posts with the stolen work, the authors could be in big trouble legally.
Steemcleaners does a great job of fighting image plagiarism up to a point. Their resources are limited though, and they can only do so much. (Plagiarism is not listing a source.) If you see images being used in this way, you can contact Steemcleaners via their linkdrop over on chat. (@steemcleaners-linkdrop)
It is also considered plagiarism not only to copy an image and use it without giving credit, but it is also considered plagiarism to link to an incorrect source. Steemcleaners are not about policing the content of others, so they have to take it at the author's word that the source is correct! This may lead to serious problems down the road for the author, Steemit, and all Steemit users. Let's educate users and let them know that Google, Pinterest, Flickr, Wikepedia, bloggers, other websites etc. are not sources. They are USERS of the images. Even an agency is not the source. The photographer is the source.
Although plagiarism is not a legal issue, copyright violation is. Citing a source of an image may avoid the plagiarism issue, but it will not avoid the copyright violation issue. No amount of attribution or links to a source will get a copyright violator off the hook!
So what's copyright violation then? In a nutshell, copyright violation involves using an image which is protected by copyright law without the permission of the artist or photographer, or making a derivative of that image. Under copyright law, only the original artist/photographer has the right to make changes to a work and use it. Avoiding copyright violation has nothing to do with giving a credit line or source link!
Many are blindly doing what others do – and that is using images off the web to include in their blogs. It doesn't matter if they give attribution or not, but if they are using a stock photo (not a free one from Pixabay etc.) they are guilty of copyright violation! Even using a stock image with a paid license may involve copyright infringement, because usage on Steemit is consideredcommercial usage!
Don't take my word for it, though. I am not an attorney. Attorney Sarah F Hawkins explains the differences between plagiarism and copyright violation on her website.
So what can we as photographers do? We can keep learning about copyright issues and keep sharing what we learn! Education is going to be key here. We need to get the word out, as more and more people are joining Steemit each day, and most have no idea about image rights! They just do what everyone else seems to be doing!
If Steemit is to be a respected site for bloggers, then it has to be also respected as a site that values the work of ALL content providers – not just writers, but also photographers and other artists!
Would you consider joining me in helping to educate Steemit users – especially those who are not intentionally breaking the law? Those who are doing it intentionally know what they are doing, and don't want to hear what we have to say, anyway.
You may be interested in an organization I belong to: The Copyright Alliance. It's an organization that fights for the rights of ALL content providers, (including the very authors who are misusing our photography!) There is no cost to you to join, and you will be sure to feel supported. There is strength in numbers!
In case you have missed them, here are some past posts I have written about copyright infringement.
Making A First Impression )n Your Blog with Photography – Do It The Right Way
How To Avoid Copyright Violation And Image Plagiarism – How To Effectively Use Google Images
Hey Steemit – Royalty Free Images Are Not Free Images
Stock Photography – Do I Have The Right To Use It?
Copyright – What does It Have To Do With You?
Free Photography On The Web – Where To Find It
Steemit – My Key To Long-Term Success – 3 Must-Know Tips From A Newbie
Is The Bible Copyright? - Some Versions Are, But Some Are Not
Copyright Violation – Why It Is Morally Wrong
Thanks for taking the time to read this! I appreciate it.
Resteems and Upvotes are very much appreciated, and they are helping me to save for a trip to Tahiti, which my husband and I hope to make for our 25th wedding anniversary in 2019!
To find my photography and designs on Steemit, please search on #dianemacphoto and to check out my art prints and stock images, please visit my website.
I was wondering about this. Clearly if we are making money here on steemit, then it is clearly commercial use. This includes music that people have playing in the background. Steemit should be very careful to spread this information to the users.
#payitfoward
Yes, it includes videos, music, art, photography and written work too. They are all covered by copyright law. Steemit is leaving it up to the individuals to do the right thing, but we know how that goes!
(Not sure why my thumbnail did not post. It must be a conspiracy. LOL)
In case you ever come across the problem, the filename had special characters in it. I found the answer on another blog.
Great post! it's nice to know that im not the only one who's noticed this.
I'm glad I'm not the only one too! :-)
Great post @dmcamera!
I have a question though: what about publishing portraits (made by me, of course) that have been taken without signing a model release?
I usually post these images on my social media (FB, Instagram), and no one ever complained, also because the photographs were made with the approval of the subject.
However, if I post them on Steemit, it looks like that I would be liable of commercial exploiting other peoples' images.
In this case, would it be acceptable to post them using the "Decline Payout" option?
I know that it is, in my case, extremely unlikely that anyone can sue me for posting a picture of them; however I find it disrespectful, since there was no prior agreement. Maybe I should start asking for model releases in the future...
What do you think?
I always err on the side of caution. All portrait images that I have posted on Steemit have signed model releases for commercial use. The models knew their images were going to be used for stock photography. I’m not a lawyer, but I know people do have a right to sue for invasion of privacy. Street photographry has different rules. When I had a portrait studio, I always had people sign model releases that were limited to my advertising of the business. That release didn't cover commercial usage. If I were to make a portrait specially for Steemit, I would get an iron clad model release first. Hope this helps.
Thank you for the prompt response, that was exactly the kind of answer I was looking for.
Can I know more about rules of street photography? I live in Italy and I expect that the legislation may be different from yours, but: as far as I know, a model release is required either, except when the subject is not recognisable in the picture, or his/her importance in the picture is very limited (such as, photographing a huge crowd in a public event).
Yes, I would still be careful to use only crowd scenes or images of groups of musicians etc. Again, because you stand to gain, I wouldnt use recognizable individuals. Others do, though!
Great post! We need to spread the knowledge of copyright. SteamCleaners is great by they are focused in plagiarism and barely even mention copyright. I have been toying with the idea of creating a copyright bot, that uses a mechanism much like the block chain watchers. Essentially copyright violations can be reported to the bot and then five real people have to review the violation and agree that it is a violation. Once the violation has been verified the bot could take a number of different actions, such as post a comment much like steam cleaners, or do swarmed flagging of the post, maybe start with the first and if the user is frequently reported it starts flagging.
Oh, keep me posted on that! Something has to be done! I have been searching through new posts to try to find one worthy of sending to CURIE, but withing their guidelines of no travel or photography, I am finding it an impossible task. I had heard it was a great way to make a few Steem bucks!
Sure I have come across some great blog posts, but if they are using a stock image, I will not recommend them. So far, I have not found one post I can put forward, (often because they are using unauthorized stock images and I don't want to see them rewarded for that! ) I have found so may instances of image plagiarism (and copyright infringement), that I can't possible report them all! Sad! There is nowhere to report the copyright infringement anyway!
It is one of the downsides to the open distributed system, it is essentially an open lawless land, with no central authority other than the watchers that validate the blocks in the blockchain, not the content stored within. Both exciting and at the same time fraught with danger and misuse.
The other difficulty is there is no easy way to validate a license of a photo even if someone pays for it. Web distribution licenses are fairly inexpensive, when I purchase and use one I attribute the creator and the place I licensed it from. But there is no way short of contacting the licensor via email or phone, for a third party to really validate that I did indeed purchase that license.
All the agencies I belong to do not allow commercial usage of an image on its own, so any usage would be a violation. A paid license would be OK for a personal blog, and that's it.
So, even if someone licenses one of my images for $1,000, that license has limitations, and the photographer never gives up the right to be the only one allowed to make money from the image. If an image is licensed it can be sold on a product like a cup, a clock, or a calendar etc., but never as a means for others to benefit from its use.
Steemit has entered new territory and has opened a huge can of worms in my opinion!
I believe that Steemit would generally qualify under editorial use, which is allowed under the ShutterStock standard license (and likely other stock photography services). You can make money on editorial use, through subscription payments, payments for individual copies and advertisement. I am sure there is a cutoff on the audience size for editorial use, likely in the range of 500,000 which is the number they list explicitly specify for self published books for sale.
A Steemit post of just the image or the image and a description of the image would not however count as editorial use.
Under Editorial use, images from any of the agencies may not be used for personal or commercial gain. (That's because the copyright holders alone have that right.) As Steemit is primarily about financial gain, and not about news, an image being used on Steemit would count as commercial usage. Steemit is a whole different ball game from the rest of the web where bloggers are not getting paid.
All descriptions I can find for editorial use allow them to be used in magazines and newspapers, all of which also have advertising in them and make money from that advertising. You cannot use editorial images directly in advertising, but you can use them in a newspaper or magazine that makes money off of ads that are printed with the editorial content or of the sale of products that contain editorial content.
I also see documents that say you can use editorial images in books, even books that are for sale.
You can make money off of something that contains editorial images as long as the images are used to enhance the content of the text/media that you are selling; you however cannot use editorial images as printing on merchandise, in an advertisement, directly sell prints of it or otherwise make money directly off the image itself.
https://www.shutterstock.com/blog/2008/03/how-to-use-editorial-use-only-images/
On Steemit, there are people who are making posts where the image itself is the content they post. This is a clear violation of the editorial license, assuming the even licensed it in the first place. However if someone makes a blog post about a photographic technique and use an editorial licensed image as a visual aid to enhance the post about that technique, that is proper editorial use and would not violate the editorial license even if they make money on the post.
It is true, there are a great many people violating the editorial license on Steemit, again assuming they even paid for a license in the first place, you have no arguement from me there. But it is clearly within the editorial license to make money off of a blog post, newspaper article, magazine article, book or other editorial media, that uses an editorial licensed image as editorial content of that product.
There is a difference between Editorial Images and using images editorially. It's not the same thing.
The Shutterstock link was linked to a description of Editorial Images. When an image is listed as Editorial, you purchase only an Editorial license which would allow for use in a magazine, textbook or newspaper etc. where the focus is on the image and what it is about. There will be advertising of course, and the book or magazine can be sold!
For example, someone could write an article about such and such a Castle, with the use of an image of the castle (with no property release available.) . A text book may write about old age, with an image of an elderly person who had agreed to make his image available for editorial use only (so no model release is available.)
Another example would be of a photograph of a train wreck offered as Editorial. That image could only be used to write about that train wreck or about avoiding train wrecks etc.
Using an image editorially on the other hand, means that the image itself provides no personal or monetary gain to the user. A person writing a personal blog about her family, with no monetary gain involved, would qualify as using images editorially. If an image is used on a blog or even a Facebook Business Page in a way that brings monetary gain to the user, that use is classed as commercial.
It is very confusing I know, but it's apples and pears. LOL! Two different ball games in the confusing world of stock photography.
Respecting copyright is the first step in supporting the people who produce the work.
You are so right. We have to respect the copyright of the bloggers, and they of all people should respect the copyright of the photographers and other artists.
A lot of countries don't respect copyright though - and a lot of the people on here are from countries that don't respect it.
True, but where is Steemit's official location? The US? Would that not make the actual location of the infringement the US? I'm not sure, just guessing on that one!
You can't apply USA laws outside of USA territories. There are international agreements but they need to be enforced by local authorities if they are a part of the agreement.
But, Steemit would be obligated to remove an image from its site if a copyright holder filed a DMCA take down notice. It would not matter where the author resides. Steemit would face penalties if the image was not removed in a timely fashion!
Here's the catch 22 in that ... nothing can be removed from the chain. The best Steemit Inc. could do is flag the post into "low value" thereby discouraging the user from repeat posts.
I'm especially irritated by the use of model's photographs in so many posts. In those cases, people are often crediting "twitter" or "Instagram" or trying to claim they are the model.
The block itself cannot be removed from the chain but the content can. You can go back and edit any post and delete all of the content and you will be left with an empty post.
The images are not stored in the blockchain. If you are using the Steemit.com website, they are stored in Amazon Simple Storage Service, also known as S3. The images can be removed from S3 with a DMCA take takedown request. So images are not indelibly ingrained in the blockchain, nor is the text and links in a post, which is good for all copyright holders/
That explains it well. Thanks!
I had thought that too, but I have been told over on the chat site that only the text is stored on the block chain. Images are not, which I find encouraging. The copyright holder would have to make a request through a DMCA takedown notice to have the image removed and Steemit would have to comply.
Not to mention fake (farm) accounts, as I would like to put it. Isn't there someone out there (who so happened to live the US as I am informed) is doing that? There are all kinds of violation going on, be it copyright. When the heart is not right, anything goes sideways.
I know. It really make me wonder if I belong here
It is going to be everywhere @dmcamera . You cannot get away from this and be in a photography utopia.
I have learned the hard way a long time ago. Whatever you have post to the Internet (and with technology enhancement), it is never really yours anymore (in some ways).
Correct me if I am wrong.... Steemit (in Wikipedia) says, like Bitcoin, it is a decentralised network, which means it can be EVERYWHERE. I have checked the website registration, and this site's interface is located in 4 different areas. I'd probably will not disclose it here, but yes, one of them is in the US.
But that said, we do not understand how decentralised coding is for Steemit, so (the contents) could it is still scattered across the world.
I think there is a company which owns Steemit Inc. which owns Steemit and it is located in the USA, I believe. The block chain code is all over the world, as far as I can tell. There was already a post written a while back about Steemit having to comply with a DMCA take down notice last year.
I can tell you the truth. The international community (I have noticed a few distinct type of groups, mostly not very English educated) will care hoots about this copyright issued from US, as long as we do not keep encouraging everyone create their own content, and support groups that help make that happen.
Telling people it is wrong to use other people content is asking you to tell a child not to touch something. That's human nature.
Let's just keep encouraging others to use their hand phones and be their own man. I have been enough social network that pays to see that because of the ignorance of those who think the law can protect them, will end up having the whole site torn into pieces.
Very good useful information I will keep my eyes open and thank you for opening mine🌺
You are welcome!
Of course i can only agree with this statement, I am still new here but I clearly see a lot of people posting pictures that obviously are not their own content. It is maybe obvious for me as I am an experienced photographer, but I presume most viewers can be cheated. That is a serious problem that @dmcamera is pointing out. However the weapons to fight against this behavior are not legion. I think it is also a responsability to all of us involved in imagery creation to be attentive to what seems or not seems legit. Thanks for sharing, upvoted and re-steemed.
Thanks. The answer, I think is education, education, education! Steemit is not Facebook, and these are not personal blogs. Steemit is for-profit! That's why even a paid license for a stock image would not allow t its use on Steemit! Only the photographer has that right.
Absolutely
Bottom line: Set our hearts straight and use our own pictures. Keep calm and steem on. That is the best way.