# Photo use



## papheteer (Jan 8, 2014)

I saw my photo of spicy henry that I posted on this forum being used by parkside orchids on their site. It's kinda flattering but shouldn't they ask first before using someone else's photo?


----------



## emydura (Jan 8, 2014)

Of course they should. That is pretty ordinary. People are always stealing my photos to sell their plants on eBay and there is little that can be done to stop that. But that is mostly caused by individual amateur growers. In your case the theft has been by a commercial nursery who should no better.


----------



## jeremyinsf (Jan 8, 2014)

It's why I mark most of my photos, even if other people don't like that.


----------



## Ryan Young (Jan 8, 2014)

Yes it should be asked for permission as courtesy, they should offer to pay for usage or give photo credit as a bare minimum. It would be up to you.


----------



## goldenrose (Jan 8, 2014)

so will you be contacting them?


----------



## emydura (Jan 8, 2014)

jeremyinsf said:


> It's why I mark most of my photos, even if other people don't like that.



It takes about 30 seconds to get round that. To make it harder you need to put the signature over the flower but then that ruins the image and people could still clone that out anyway with a bit of effort. In the end I just accept people will pinch your photos.


----------



## John M (Jan 8, 2014)

If a commercial nursery has used your photo on e-Bay or on their website, send them an invoice for that use. The bigger issue here is that e-Bay makes it impossible to stop one of their member sellers from using your photos on their site. It infuriates me! If I ever have the good fortune to win the lottery, I'd love to launch a class-action lawsuit against e-Bay and bring them to their knees with a financial judgement against them. I have tried and tried and tried to find a way to get e-Bay to step in and stop members from using my photos; but, e-Bay just doesn't care. Not only are they enabling the practice of using stolen photos to sell products, they are benefiting financially from the practice. So, I wonder, why hasn't someone with deeper pockets than me done something already? Every time a seller member makes money using a photo which was stolen from me, so does e-Bay and they know it. In my mind, that makes them liable to me for compensation.


----------



## KyushuCalanthe (Jan 8, 2014)

I occasionally see one of my photos being used the same way. The most recent was Cyp. bardolphianum on eBay. The real kicker is the plant being sold was ripped from the wilds of China, pretty much destined to die, and my photo was being used to facilitate this. Will joys never cease?

As for "ripped off" stuff from the net - good luck protecting anything. The internet is one big "remix" these days of information, people "creating new things" via other people's work - just take a look at Youtube sometime. Can it be stopped? Not likely when dealing with individuals, but in your case an actual nursery is doing it, so one simple email should do the trick.

Let us know how it all turns out for you.


----------



## jeremyinsf (Jan 8, 2014)

emydura said:


> It takes about 30 seconds to get round that. To make it harder you need to put the signature over the flower but then that ruins the image and people could still clone that out anyway with a bit of effort. In the end I just accept people will pinch your photos.



I agree with you - and very much appreciate your sense of humor. Even marking OVER the photo - that can be taken out in a matter of seconds with the latest version of PhotoShop. I'm merely attempting to put something in as a deterrent - to slow it down, I guess you can say. At least then someone has to put some effort into it. There is no real solution, as others have stated. I share what I want, knowing it might be taken, and don't share the best images when I don't want that to happen.


----------



## emydura (Jan 8, 2014)

jeremyinsf said:


> I agree with you - and very much appreciate your sense of humor. Even marking OVER the photo - that can be taken out in a matter of seconds with the latest version of PhotoShop. I'm merely attempting to put something in as a deterrent - to slow it down, I guess you can say. At least then someone has to put some effort into it. There is no real solution, as others have started. I share what I want, knowing it might be taken, and don't share the best images when I don't want that to happen.



Good point. By putting your name on it you are saying the photo belongs to you and others should leave it alone. A lot of people would recognise this. At least you put your name discretely in the corner where it doesn't detract from the flower.

I'll have to go and look up how you can quickly remove the signature from a photo with the latest version of PS.


----------



## jeremyinsf (Jan 8, 2014)

emydura said:


> Good point. By putting your name on it you are saying the photo belongs to you and others should leave it alone. A lot of people would recognise this. At least you put your name discretely in the corner where it doesn't detract from the flower.



Some would argue, as recently as a couple days ago on this board, that what I do DOES detract and spoil the photo. 

I'm just trying to find a happy medium on the topic. And ultimately, I need to do what I want to do.


----------



## papheteer (Jan 8, 2014)

Thanks guys. I'll try and email them letting them know they're being naughty!


----------



## ehanes7612 (Jan 9, 2014)

Photos can fall into the category of 'fair Use' ..this is an allowable use of the photo in which benefits society as a whole ...Parkside is a retail site using your picture to make a sale ..i doubt if their use of your picture would fall into 'fair use'. What I would do is either send them a cease and desist order or send them an invoice for several times the value of using the photo ..most likely somebody (naive person) downloaded the photo without understanding the law..good luck!


----------



## Secundino (Jan 9, 2014)

If a stolen photo with copyright is used and the copyright-advice has been removed, you have the proof that the person was not naive but knew perfectly well that he is committing a fraud. 
ebay not only makes it possible to use stolen photographs without punishment, it allows selling without CITES regulation. They claim beeing only a 'platform'. 
That is why I never ever have used ebay nor intent to do.


----------



## KyushuCalanthe (Jan 9, 2014)

Secundino said:


> ...it allows selling without CITES regulation. They claim beeing only a 'platform'.



Yes, that part is fascinating to me as well. Does that mean I can ignore other international laws as well if I sell (or buy) on that site? Certainly some regulatory body can say this isn't legal. It's not like eBay is on the darknet.


----------



## jeremyinsf (Jan 9, 2014)

KyushuCalanthe said:


> Yes, that part is fascinating to me as well. Does that mean I can ignore other international laws as well if I sell (or buy) on that site? Certainly some regulatory body can say this isn't legal. It's not like eBay is on the darknet.



They don't have the capacity to police everyone's paperwork. The structure is such that sometimes the sales are legit (nursery plants, inside the US, etc), and sometimes they are not (obvious examples).

If people want eBay to have to deal with this, the only practical solution they would have would be to deal with slipper orchids like they do Ivory - ban the sale - entirely, in every way. 

"Be careful what you ask for".


----------



## emydura (Jan 9, 2014)

jeremyinsf said:


> They don't have the capacity to police everyone's paperwork. The structure is such that sometimes the sales are legit (nursery plants, inside the US, etc), and sometimes they are not (obvious examples).
> 
> If people want eBay to have to deal with this, the only practical solution they would have would be to deal with slipper orchids like they do Ivory - ban the sale - entirely, in every way.
> 
> "Be careful what you ask for".



I agree. To expect eBay to have to deal with issues such as CITES legislation is completely unrealistic and impractical. It would have to have separate policies for each country. It really only is the US which has such a hard nosed interpretation of CITES. It is up to the buyer/seller to be aware of CITES legislation, not eBay.


----------



## Secundino (Jan 10, 2014)

It would suffice to ban ivory and other CITES-bound goods _from eBay_! There are good sellers in every country a buyer can choose.


----------



## John M (Jan 10, 2014)

The policing of CITES infractions is much more complex than photo stealing. My complaint is that e-Bay does not provide an easy way to contact them and file a complaint about the commercial use of a stolen photo. I'm not expecting e-Bay to police what people post and independently take any initiative to check on the validity of photo ownership. However, they can certainly act on complaints made by the photo owners and in cases where it is clear that the photo does not belong to the vendor using it, they can delete the auction.


----------



## KyushuCalanthe (Jan 10, 2014)

John M said:


> ...they can certainly act on complaints made by the photo owners and in cases where it is clear that the photo does not belong to the vendor using it, they can delete the auction.



Yes, but that would stifle business. Sorry.

OK, I understand that eBay cannot look into every detail about what and how things are being sold, but they should have an open ear. If there are enough complaints, something should be done. The old adage, where there's smoke, there's fire.

Apropos, I just saw a vendor that is selling "Cypripedium bardolphianum". The rootstock being sold is ridiculously underpriced (like $9US) and the photos show a plant that is clearly NOT that species - except of the flowering specimen which is a photo the seller lifted from my site! 

Enjoy, and buyer beware.


----------



## Ray (Jan 11, 2014)

I have recently found some of my photos used on university websites (2 out of 3 in Australia), and when I contacted them, in every case it was a matter of a student using them, not a university employee. Being a huge supporter of education, I offered to let them continue to use them with credit now attached.

I don't think the ladies at Parkside would intentionally steal a photo. I'd bet someone assisting with the site took a shortcut.


----------



## KyushuCalanthe (Jan 11, 2014)

Ray said:


> I have recently found some of my photos used on university websites (2 out of 3 in Australia), and when I contacted them, in every case it was a matter of a student using them, not a university employee. Being a huge supporter of education, I offered to let them continue to use them with credit now attached.
> 
> I don't think the ladies at Parkside would intentionally steal a photo. I'd bet someone assisting with the site took a shortcut.



Good point Ray. This reminds me very much of the controversy surrounding Jane Goodall's book, "Seeds of Hope" where several "lifted" passages from various sources without proper citation caused her a PR nightmare last year.

For a brief overview, see this article in The Christian Science Monitor

I think we'll see more and more of this kind of problem even when the people involved had no bad intent. I wonder sometimes if the internet-raised generation even sees a problem with taking from the net - after all it is a resource at their disposal, so why not?

Oddly, I've had local organizations simply take whole articles off my site and republish them in newsletters without even one peep towards me. At the end of these they did put "source: botanyboy.org", but that's all. Hmm, not the way I would have handled it.

Now, as for idiots lifting entire articles to republish (a serious problem if you publish unique content on the net), or equally idiotic sellers of often times bogus products using your photos to make a sale (epidemic on any online auction), well, that's a whole other matter.

As a friend of mine used to say, there are two kinds of people in the world, givers and takers. In my mind ignorance isn't much of a defense.


----------



## Ray (Jan 14, 2014)

I have actually been surprised a couple of times to have someone at the Orchid Digest send me an unsolicited email "Here's the proof copy", when about to publish something of mine.

I offer the free use of anything on my site for society newsletters, and ask that they 1) tell me they will be doing so (so I can correct old stupidity first, as needed, 2) give me credit, and 3) send me a copy of the publication.


----------



## Lanmark (Nov 8, 2015)

I just discovered this evening that eBay seller cgmoody is using (without permission or credit) one of my photos of Phalaenopsis Tzu Chiang Balm to sell her hybrid plant in a listing titled, "Phal. Tzu Chiang Balm x Phal. Venus "Pink"-FRECKLED FOLIAGE-FRAGRANT"


----------



## Marco (Nov 8, 2015)

Orchids-forever from ebay has used some forum members photos as well. I found out after my first order when I started watching their listings. The plant I ordered came with passengers as well. 

My first order was also my last order.


----------



## Lanmark (Nov 9, 2015)

I sent cgmoody a message via eBay's messaging system: "Thanks for using my photo of Tzu Chiang Balm without permission. Classy."

It will be interesting to see if they continue to use my photo or if they take it down.

I purchased from Orchids-forever once as well, Marco, and I got some passengers too.


----------



## Lanmark (Nov 9, 2015)

I sent another message to cgmoody at ebay, and I emailed her at work as well, specifically requesting that she remove the photo in question from her auction listing. I informed her that I will report her to ebay's VeRO program if she fails to comply with my request.


----------



## SlipperFan (Nov 9, 2015)

Good luck, Mark! I have found that it takes ebay several days before they actually act on a report. By then, the auction is usually over. It is a real pain on many levels.


----------



## Lanmark (Nov 9, 2015)

The seller has ended the auction early due to an "error in the listing" but I will be watching to see what she does in the future. She hasn't bothered to reply to my messages or apologize for what she did.


----------



## Happypaphy7 (Nov 10, 2015)

Taking images is all too easy and common in the internet era, but it only shows that they have no manners, especially if used in making money. 

I think using images for non-profit use is fine, although making an effort to contact the owner for permission of use would be nice. 

I have seen one eBayer using delenatii and magic lantern pictures posted here. 
I have seen my picture ( not posted here) used on eBay. 
It was someone in Greece if I remember correctly. 
At first, the person won't admit but eventually admitted. 

Then orchids.com ( Norman's orchid) were using my picture of Coelogyne hybrid.
I contacted them and ask for either discount on my purchase or take it off the website. They said no, but put my name in the picture the next day. 
How stingy and not sorry! lol


----------



## Lanmark (Nov 10, 2015)

Yes, I don't mind if someone takes one of my photos for personal use, but to publish and use it without permission to make a profit is definitely beyond rude.


----------



## SlipperFan (Nov 10, 2015)

Yes, beyond rude: illegal and immoral.


----------



## Ray (Nov 11, 2015)

I have had several images used by others. Recently, that's been centered primarily by university students in Australia, for some reason.

When I contact the U, I am sure to advise them that - as I'm a supporter of education - they may use them if credited properly, but I suspect the students are getting disciplined, as they usually disappear.


----------



## gonewild (Nov 11, 2015)

Ray said:


> I have had several images used by others. Recently, that's been centered primarily by university students in Australia, for some reason.
> 
> When I contact the U, I am sure to advise them that - as I'm a supporter of education - they may use them if credited properly, but I suspect the students are getting disciplined, as they usually disappear.



As I recall Educational use of photos have always been exempt from copyright infringement.


----------



## emydura (Nov 11, 2015)

Ray said:


> I have had several images used by others. Recently, that's been centered primarily by university students in Australia, for some reason.
> 
> When I contact the U, I am sure to advise them that - as I'm a supporter of education - they may use them if credited properly, but I suspect the students are getting disciplined, as they usually disappear.



In what context are they using them Ray? On educational websites?


----------



## SlipperFan (Nov 11, 2015)

Educational use clause was before the internet!


----------



## Ray (Nov 11, 2015)

I believe they were published research reports.

Nobody is making money on them, so I don't really care. Totally unlike the OP.


----------



## gonewild (Nov 11, 2015)

SlipperFan said:


> Educational use clause was before the internet!



Is the internet any different than a paper publication for copyright?
I bet soon copyright laws will not apply to images posted on the internet.


----------



## SlipperFan (Nov 11, 2015)

gonewild said:


> Is the internet any different than a paper publication for copyright?
> I bet soon copyright laws will not apply to images posted on the internet.



I was just thinking that someone might lift a photo off the internet and use it in and educational presentation without a source or copyright included. Then someone could lift that photo from the presentation and not be responsible for the course. A lot easier than in the paper days.


----------



## gonewild (Nov 11, 2015)

SlipperFan said:


> I was just thinking that someone might lift a photo off the internet and use it in and educational presentation without a source or copyright included. Then someone could lift that photo from the presentation and not be responsible for the course. A lot easier than in the paper days.



I dont think educational use requires any copyright or photo credit be shown. If someone lifts the photo from the educational use and uses it for non educational use they would be responsible for infringement since they dont have the right of Fair Use.

In the paper days it was really not a big problem because to get any degree of quality required either a slide or negative and that usually meant the photographer had to provide the original. Digital photos and the internet basically ended the stock photography business and certainly devalued photographs.


----------



## KyushuCalanthe (Nov 12, 2015)

gonewild said:


> Digital photos and the internet basically ended the stock photography business and certainly devalued photographs.



I would go further and say that digital technology in general has devalued content of any form - photography, video (especially now with 4K video becoming more affordable), written content, music… you name it. More and more "the property" of the internet is becoming communal. I don't have a problem with that. 

The problem is a power issue, and in the end it is the sharks and the already powerful who win that game (nothing changes). So, as usual the ones who truly create things get the short end of the stick. The thing is, in the end you can mine creativity (or this one earth we live on) for just so long before there's not much left to mine.


----------



## Secundino (Nov 13, 2015)

If you don't want your pics to be used by others, just reduce the quality/size before uploading. 

If the 'short end of the stick' means money retribution, I agree with you , Botany Boy. If one believes that creativity itself is the 'long end of the stick', those who create things are on the winning side.


----------

