Did someone on UHH steal my picture ?
Oct 24, 2019 05:39:31 #
What if they use my pictures at Zillow website? There are a few pictures I took which is posted on Zillow website. I can prove the pictures are mine because they are shot on film and I have the negatives.
Oct 24, 2019 05:47:51 #
roadsideron
Loc: Apache Junction, AZ
Apparently if you post them to a website with the terms of use that Uglyhedgehog has then they can do whatever they want with them without your permission. I didn't know that until I just read an article with a partial list of sites that has those terms of use. In order to use those sites you agree when you post something. Most people, including me, ever read site rules and regulations.
Oct 24, 2019 07:36:08 #
repleo wrote:
The first picture is a shot I posted here on UHH b... (show quote)
You can contact Linda Collins, the listing broker as reported by Zillow, and ask them where they got the picture and for the copyright information that they must have in order to publish an image. The Zillow listing even has a copyright statement. And since you have a reasonable story behind the stolen image, you can make them take it down. There is no question that it is your image - clouds, other variables in the images that would be impossible to duplicate unless there was someone at your side, etc - these images were taken within seconds of each other and if you have saved your images, you might even have the second image on your hard drive to show ownership.
Unless you have registered them with the US Copyright office, there is no chance you can get any $$$.
No one on UHH stole this. It had to be the thief who stole your camera.
Oct 24, 2019 07:38:30 #
repleo wrote:
The first picture is a shot I posted here on UHH b... (show quote)
There was a case a few months ago where two photogs shot the same picture a microsecond apart from about 20 feet from each other. Same here. This is two photographers from slightly different spots shooting almost as the same time.
Oct 24, 2019 09:09:24 #
nikonbug wrote:
There was a case a few months ago where two photogs shot the same picture a microsecond apart from about 20 feet from each other. Same here. This is two photographers from slightly different spots shooting almost as the same time.
I agree. The contents of the photos are virtually identical, aside from the actual coverage of the image. I didn't say cropping because there is no proof that the 2nd image was cropped. They had to be taken at the same instant. The perspective is slightly different between the two and no amount of cropping is going to change that. Actually, it would be ironic if the 2nd shot was taken by someone with a cellphone!
Oct 24, 2019 09:33:12 #
Hamltnblue
Loc: Springfield PA
Since they have the un-croped original, maybe they can claim that your stole their image and posted it.
Oct 24, 2019 10:18:52 #
Can't be your image unless someone had access to your library, your image looks like a cropped version of the second image, the building in the upper lefthand corner of the second image does not appear in yours, does beg a question.
Oct 24, 2019 10:27:24 #
Shooter313 wrote:
I may be wrong, (it has happened plenty of times b... (show quote)
All photos immediately have copyright. You can sue for financial damages. However, you have to have registered a copyright to sue for punitive damages.
As for the photos the OP shows here, they were taken seconds apart, looking at the clouds and water ripples.
Oct 24, 2019 12:51:18 #
OP here.
Thanks to all who pointed out the slight differences between the two shots. I just realized that it wasn't my LF-1 that was stolen, it was a Pannie Z3 that I replaced with the LF-1, so that eliminates the car theft theory. (The LF-1 met its demise when my snow blower 'found' it buried in snow in the driveway.) That leaves me to conclude that it was indeed another photographer who just happened to see the same shot at the same time from a few feet away. Pure coincidence.
Copyright issues were never my concern. I just wanted to clear up the mystery.
Anyway, I think my shot is the better of the two.
Thanks to all.
Thanks to all who pointed out the slight differences between the two shots. I just realized that it wasn't my LF-1 that was stolen, it was a Pannie Z3 that I replaced with the LF-1, so that eliminates the car theft theory. (The LF-1 met its demise when my snow blower 'found' it buried in snow in the driveway.) That leaves me to conclude that it was indeed another photographer who just happened to see the same shot at the same time from a few feet away. Pure coincidence.
Copyright issues were never my concern. I just wanted to clear up the mystery.
Anyway, I think my shot is the better of the two.
Thanks to all.
Oct 24, 2019 12:57:15 #
They were so sneaky in deciding to photoshop-in that building on the left to obtain a fair-use exception to your original version ...
Oct 24, 2019 18:33:01 #
roadsideron
Loc: Apache Junction, AZ
This is just my opinion and I'm far from an expert but after downloading both photos it appears as though the are different pictures taken from the same location. The person in the background is a couple of steps to the left from the first photo and the clouds are in a different potion in relation to the trees. Given the people and the vehicles in the background it looks like the pictures had to have been taken within seconds of each other. How many photos did you take when you was standing there?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.