Should I do anything about my image taken and used in a business?

[Pieter12]

A large percentage of small businesses can't afford to commission photography or pay substantial amounts to license it. They are limited to photography that is free of royalty cost or, more and more, AI generated imagery.
That being said, even in this time of near revolutionary disruption to photographic markets, their is no excuse for not doing the right thing with photographic images that, at least until recently, had commercial value.

Royalty-free images are not free, though. Usually they are commissioned by a stock agency, either from an in-house or outside photographer. One way or another, the photographer (and models involved if any) gets paid. And the agency sells those images. It's just that the fee is very low and there are few limits to the usage of the images. Before the internet and the mass-posting of images, what did small businesses do? They somehow survived, they anted up for necessary art and photography. The existence the internet should not legitimize theft.

 

[MattKing]

The existence the internet should not legitimize theft.

Agreed.
The problem being, of course, that market forces are driving the legitimate prices to zero.

 

[snusmumriken]

@Nancy123: Personally, I would have aimed for recompense for the offence already committed (“Oops” my foot!), but glad you achieved an outcome that satisfied you.

 

[koraks]

The company that took it was a large photography production service so they should have known better.

It's even more diffuse/opaque, which I think is a major part of the problem.
Your photo appeared on the gosee.news website, but inside one of the 'blogs' that's featured on the platform. It appears that pretty much anyone can create one of those blogs/portfolios by registering an account on gosee.news and then start uploading content. In this sense, gosee.news, the entity that's registered in Switzerland, is only the provider of the platform. The actual content creator (or the entity supposed to create content) is a third party that registers an account with them. I guess this doesn't change much w.r.t. the legal liability of the hosting provider (i.e. gosee.news) - it's still their website and their responsibility to ensure that the content that they host is legally kosher. However, they weren't the ones who stole your photo and appropriated it - even though, again, they're liable.

It appears that the actual 'blogger' that stole your photo is either a registered user or even a (former) employee or freelancer working for gosee.news - but I suspect the former. Their profile is here: https://www.gosee.expert/expert/experts-profile/NjE5OQ== The name leads to this LinkedIn profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drphotographyproducer/ If you look at this, it becomes clear that this is (pardon my French) some hopeless nitwit puffed up with hot air trying to make a buck out of basically leeching off other people's work while sitting under a palm tree in a sunny country. Platforms like gosee.news that basically don't give a hoot about what happens, as long as there's loads of traffic being generated without too much police showing up at 'their' P.O. Box 'head office' (note how the only employee findable on LinkedIn is a freelancer), will happily accommodate such good-for-nothing content thieves on the premise that it brings in the punters and the odds of getting busted for anything are pretty minimal. Ultimately, it appears that the responsibility for actually stealing your photo was with the 'Michelle d'Eze' character, whose website can be found here: http://www.beauchemindeze.com/ The ethically-unbothered gents at gosee.news are facilitators to the whole manure pile.

Make of this what you will. This is essentially the internet at its worst and frankly, it's beyond me how people like this d'Eze woman would want to profile themselves this way online for everyone to see. Nothing she shows makes her stand out as someone you'd want to professionally engage with - how credible is someone operating from the Dominican Republic as a location scout for Quebec? It's akin like putting on your business card "work with me, I'll mess up anything you ask and steal your stuff in the process". What a dumbass.

The 'apology' you received should apparently indicate best intentions and an honest mistake, but given what a bit of clicking around easily reveals (see above), it's plain to see no best intentions are present, here, and this is basically just a bunch of people deliberately trying to leech other people's work and actually working hard to avoid having to do some actual, honest work themselves.

Generally, I'm pretty nuanced in my views, but in a case like this, I'd have no qualms if someone would take a party like this to the f*ing cleaners.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The whole internet is a den of thieves. I get 2-3 emails daily, obviously spam from crooks trying to get private info so they can steal something from me. Then I get about 2-3 cell phone calls from people trying to sell me crap. When I search for something on the web, for weeks later I get ads on Youtube and elsewhere related to my inquiry. I often get ads for blue pills. No, I haven't asked.

 

[BrianShaw]

Hmmm, don’t you also get shady people knocking on your front door selling stuff?

 

[Romanko]

I don’t see how anyone can make ‘an innocent mistake’ when taking an image they find online and using it in a commercial context.

This could happen if someone stole the image and sold it to the end user. It is very unlikely that this was the case but why not give them the benefit of the doubt?

 

[koraks]

Hmmm, don’t you also get shady people knocking on your front door selling stuff?

Fortunately, this is banned by law where I live. Prior to this, it used to happen from time to time. Mostly energy and internet & cable TV companies. Not necessarily shady - annoying, yes.

why not give them the benefit of the doubt?

See my lengthy post and do some reading on the parties involved. These people evidently don't give a rodent's posterior about ethics.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

The company that took it was a large photography production service so they should have known better.

I don't think that company—so-called "Montreal/Quebec Production"—actually exists. Pretty sure most, if not all the photos have been stolen from the web. They didn't even bother trying to take the watermark out of this one:

 

[Romanko]

See my lengthy post and do some reading on the parties involved.

Done.

 

[wiltw]

Yeah, but on the other hand this is Switzerland we are talking about. Somewhat rule-bound. Ask for a payment and hint (to the CEO) that you could ask the ISP to close down the website on grounds of plagiarism.

Yet 'complying with the rule' is remedied by both A) payment/obtaining rights to use or B) discontinuing use of the image

 

[Nancy123]

It's even more diffuse/opaque, which I think is a major part of the problem.
Your photo appeared on the gosee.news website, but inside one of the 'blogs' that's featured on the platform. It appears that pretty much anyone can create one of those blogs/portfolios by registering an account on gosee.news and then start uploading content. In this sense, gosee.news, the entity that's registered in Switzerland, is only the provider of the platform. The actual content creator (or the entity supposed to create content) is a third party that registers an account with them. I guess this doesn't change much w.r.t. the legal liability of the hosting provider (i.e. gosee.news) - it's still their website and their responsibility to ensure that the content that they host is legally kosher. However, they weren't the ones who stole your photo and appropriated it - even though, again, they're liable.

It appears that the actual 'blogger' that stole your photo is either a registered user or even a (former) employee or freelancer working for gosee.news - but I suspect the former. Their profile is here: https://www.gosee.expert/expert/experts-profile/NjE5OQ== The name leads to this LinkedIn profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drphotographyproducer/ If you look at this, it becomes clear that this is (pardon my French) some hopeless nitwit puffed up with hot air trying to make a buck out of basically leeching off other people's work while sitting under a palm tree in a sunny country. Platforms like gosee.news that basically don't give a hoot about what happens, as long as there's loads of traffic being generated without too much police showing up at 'their' P.O. Box 'head office' (note how the only employee findable on LinkedIn is a freelancer), will happily accommodate such good-for-nothing content thieves on the premise that it brings in the punters and the odds of getting busted for anything are pretty minimal. Ultimately, it appears that the responsibility for actually stealing your photo was with the 'Michelle d'Eze' character, whose website can be found here: http://www.beauchemindeze.com/ The ethically-unbothered gents at gosee.news are facilitators to the whole manure pile.

Make of this what you will. This is essentially the internet at its worst and frankly, it's beyond me how people like this d'Eze woman would want to profile themselves this way online for everyone to see. Nothing she shows makes her stand out as someone you'd want to professionally engage with - how credible is someone operating from the Dominican Republic as a location scout for Quebec? It's akin like putting on your business card "work with me, I'll mess up anything you ask and steal your stuff in the process". What a dumbass.

The 'apology' you received should apparently indicate best intentions and an honest mistake, but given what a bit of clicking around easily reveals (see above), it's plain to see no best intentions are present, here, and this is basically just a bunch of people deliberately trying to leech other people's work and actually working hard to avoid having to do some actual, honest work themselves.

Generally, I'm pretty nuanced in my views, but in a case like this, I'd have no qualms if someone would take a party like this to the f*ing cleaners.

Koraks, great job in parsing out that tangled three-way mess. I could barely figure out who was who, doing what. So yesterday, this Michelle person said she would have it removed ASAP, then said it was removed, yet it is still there. (https://www.gosee.news/montrealphotoproducer/page/blog/item/31898 -- fifth photo down.)

I'm letting the website "propagate" the change and after a few more days, I will revisit my emailing with her. This is so sleazy, especially with this on her website:
"Montreal / Quebec based Photographic Production is a full Production services provided for still photography."

Thanks for the input. I'm not going to lawyer up but I will follow it to the end, out of principle!

 

[koraks]

You're welcome, and I'm sorry you actually have to deal with this in the first place. Sleazy is the word, indeed. The interview-style bio on the page you linked to...it's just...seriously. Who can write something like this about themselves. Horrible!

 

[Alex Benjamin]

The name leads to this LinkedIn profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drphotographyproducer/ If you look at this, it becomes clear that this is (pardon my French) some hopeless nitwit puffed up with hot air trying to make a buck out of basically leeching off other people's work while sitting under a palm tree in a sunny country.

I'll ask around. I have five LinkedIn contacts in common with her, one a colleague at work and the other a close friend.

 

[Pieter12]

This could happen if someone stole the image and sold it to the end user. It is very unlikely that this was the case but why not give them the benefit of the doubt?

They would not have replied that they will take down the image then. The response would have been that they purchased the rights to use it.

 

[Nancy123]

I'll ask around. I have five LinkedIn contacts in common with her, one a colleague at work and the other a close friend.

That is quite the coincidence, Alex. I'd be interested in what you find out.

 

[warden]

That is quite the coincidence, Alex. I'd be interested in what you find out.

It’s a small, small world.

 

[BrianShaw]

I'll ask around. I have five LinkedIn contacts in common with her, one a colleague at work and the other a close friend.

Seems like a bit of a casual/occasional business. But several potentially significant customers. Certainly more than some folks who run their mouth (fingers) anonymously and sans credentials on the internet.

Film-Vendor-Directory-Search -The Location Guide

www.thelocationguide.com

Select: Canada and Production Companies

Scroll down to two separate entries:

QUEBEC / MONTREAL LOCATIONS SCOUTING​

 

[awty]

The use of photos to promote your business is a justifiable expense, "Generic photos from the web"? Someone took those photos and the use of them without permission and compensation is theft. Photgraphers are small businesses too. Don't take anything for granted. How would you like it if someone stole from you?

If someone used one of my pictures I would do as I described earlier, but Iv been self employed most of my working life and am used to making business deals.

 

[Pieter12]

If someone used one of my pictures I would do as I described earlier, but Iv been self employed most of my working life and am used to making business deals.

Maybe I misunderstood. You wrote you sometimes take and use images from the internet for your small business without paying. But you would pursue anyone who did the same to you? What kind of business are you in?

 

[awty]

Maybe I misunderstood. You wrote you sometimes take and use images from the internet for your small business without paying. But you would pursue anyone who did the same to you? What kind of business are you in?

A small one, Christmas partiesare very quiet. I'll refer your query to the HR department.

 

[koraks]

I'll ask around. I have five LinkedIn contacts in common with her, one a colleague at work and the other a close friend.

Thanks; that would be interesting. I wonder if any of your mutual contacts has ever actually met or spoken to this person.

 

[juan]

In the music business, people upload their compositions to youtube , etc. And fraudulent companies using AI claim the copyright and YouTube sends any money made to the fraudsters. I suspect the composers had not registered their copyrights which would, in the US, allow them to sue and maybe fall under the treble damages provisions.

 

[BMbikerider]

The whole internet is a den of thieves. I get 2-3 emails daily, obviously spam from crooks trying to get private info so they can steal something from me. Then I get about 2-3 cell phone calls from people trying to sell me crap. When I search for something on the web, for weeks later I get ads on Youtube and elsewhere related to my inquiry. I often get ads for blue pills. No, I haven't asked.

The volume of dross that appears by magic on my door mat each week makes me believe very few people and companies are taking heed of the laws that govern selling information. Some from companies that I have never even heard of let alone bought anything from. This is one reason why I have steadfastly declined to get involved with internet banking as well. No one who I have never met get any of my personal information.

My latest gripe over this is I spoke to one company about an item of expensive household equipment, until I found another that was doing the same item at 1/5th of the cost. Politely I contacted them and said thanks but no thanks. 3 weeks passed and I got an E mail asking me to complete a survey on what I thought about the equipment from this company, but oddly enough not naming the company, but still asking me to complete the survey. I ignored it, then 4 weeks later I got another and contacted the company and asked why had they passed my details onto the survey company and gave them 36 hours to delete al reference to my name etc.
I checked the E mail I had received, which gave no information away as to who they actually were.
So I googled the E mail address and found it was the same company selling the items I had initially contacted. That promoted a complaint from me to the UK's Information Commissioner about that companies ethics. That companies website was full of glowing comments on how good they were with not one adverse comment. I wonder if the same tactics were employed to glean all those 'pats on the back' for good work which never actually took place.

 

[Agulliver]

Back in 2012/13, a photo that I took at the last concert of the Beach Boys 50th anniversary tour (their final ever with Brian Wilson) was lifted from a Beach Boys forum and used on various external blog and indeed commercial sites.

Now, I don't do photography for money....I do it for fun....but I did write to every site where I found my photo pointing out that I owned the copyright and asking to be credited. A few pulled it, most apologised and credited me. Which was all I wanted. Was rather flattering to have a few more minutes of "fame" though.

I would at least reach out to them and point out that they're using a photo without permission. They might be unaware and could have obtained it from a source passing it off as theirs or public domain.