Illegal Copy Of My Image With High Google Rank

Well...there's no doubt it has come from your shot!.. however..not sure if there's much you can do about it... sorry:-( I guess all of his work is ripped from elsewhere..but the fact he has created a silhouette of the original may work against you Bradford.. there is a change of use and a transformation. I'm not sure.. you need to speak to an expert about that.. where's Dan?

I found it on Crestock also. http://www.crestock.com/image/4089117-Offshore-oil-platform-silhouette.aspx

I notified my stock agency. I do not like to deal with them because they will be saying I invited theft by having the image here. But they have licensed the image 150X and it is eating there lunch also, as there is not a large supply of floating drilling rig images for sale as stock. A watermark would have done nothing to discourage this. I did not find the dirivitive image in use anywhere else.

It's a tricky one! Good luck !

I'm sorry, they are very similar but I do see slight differences between the two when I zoom in. Especially in the cross bracing below the platform plus there is a second, very small horizontal crane boom on the right side.

Bradford - since they are both stock sites, let the stock agency take the ball and run with it. Save yourself the headache this time around.

They are listed as vector images...But there is no doubt it is based on (if not ccompletely ripped from) your work.. (sorry Lynne...but they are)

I'm not a big fan of calling someone a thief but his looks almost exactly like your view. What are the chances that someone sat in the exact same spot as you when they took this pic. I would say slim to none. It looks like all they did was silhouette it and remove some cables,steel,etc to make the silhouette look cleaner.

You took this from a boat/ship didn't you? If so, I can see no question that the vector is a rip from your image. No way someone could line up a boat, be at the same exact spot you were, take a pic, and then turn it into a vector image.

This sucks Bradford, and perfectly illustrates why even small, low-res images that are used without permission can interfere with a sale. Hope you get this sorted!

Yes this is a deep water floating rig. Probably 100 miles offshore. This is my photo. No doubt about it. They removed a few lines and added a few. My only consolation is these 2 stock sites are relatively unknown. Apparently they are sister companies. The only other use of the silhouette is from a porn site and they have pretty much every image out there to bait in the image owners. That was just a secondary infringement.

"where's Dan?"

If I needed a photo of an oil rig, I wouldn't buy a silhouette, and vice-versa. In my view, the vector image is transformative. These are two different images.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Sorry that happened...don't know much about the technicalities/legalities etc..just sorry.

Thanks Dan, I knew I could count on you to tell me its all ok.

Amanda, thanks for the sympathy. When it comes down to it I don't know what the legalities are either. One of the nice things about selling through a stock photo agency and being exclusive is the legal support so I will see what they say, if they say anything at all.

"But they have licensed the image 150X and it is eating there lunch also,"

Of those 150 licenses, how many clients would have jumped on the black and white vector silhouette if they had a choice? My guess is none. The two images are completely different. As far as I know, you aren't offering a black and white vector silhouette.

How is this eating the agency's lunch? I'm willing to listen to reason and change my opinion, but I think this is a real stretch.


Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

This shows that we need watermarks, and as big as possible!

Dan there are only so many images of floating deep water oil rigs for sale as stock. If you have already used a number of these the choices get slimmer. I have graphic design firms that use my images over and over and have an appetite for more. If you have a boat that can go a hundred miles offshore and wait a few days for good light I will share the expenses with you. Any image of a semi-submersible drilling rig for sale as stock is direct competition. So while it may not be eating my lunch too much it is only because the site is relatively unknown.

Keep in mind the derivative image is competing with all my deep water semi-submersible oil platform images with a gross take in the 10s of thousands.
And the copy is a top Google ranked image, I don't know why.

Les a watermark would not have been much use unless it totally obliterated the image.It is a derivative with some hand work involved.

Bradford, now that you suspect there might be a demand for vector rigs, try one. Do the correct editing, cropping and deletions to make the image work as a silhouette. Did it take long? Do you consider it to be the same image or a different image?

If you're marketing vectors you have a case.

Dan Turner
Dan Turner's Seven Keys to Selling Art Online

Dan makes a good point. This person has given you a great idea on how to extend the life of your oil rig images which you say you no longer have the opportunity to produce. You can create a new revenue stream from your database by creating vectors.

Yeah that's what I suspected too... it's transformative...sad but true. Definitely worth considering doing this yourself with your other images Bradford.

Dan didn't give me a great idea. I have a friend who has been vectorizing her own rig images for years and we discussed it. I actually promote her art with my work in a collection I made. However I will revisit the idea.
This will not stand. If there was any precedent for vectorizing someone else's photo and selling it as stock it would be widespread and I would have heard about it in my 8 years of monitoring stock photo forums.
I am not looking to collect damages, although there is plenty of precedent for that. I just want his stuff off the internet.
Just being transformative is not enough to win a court battle. It has to do with how it is being used and selling a commercial stock is not one of the uses considered fair in "fair use" cases.
However this is not going to go to court. The stock agency will just take it down. If Getty doesn't make them I sure will.
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/ultra-deep-drilling-platform-offshore-oil-rig-royalty-free-image/157327568

So I wrote to Istock by Getty and explained the situation. I asked if they wanted to take care of it or have me handle it. I have been exclusive there since 2008 and they always insist that exclusives do not handle infringement cases.
After about 3 weeks I heard back. I suspected they might not want to handle it and they didn't. But I was rather appalled at the reasons.
(Mind you this image was uploaded in 2008 and has been licensed exclusively through them 150 times, netting them thousands. )

To summarize they would not help me because:
1. I did not show that it was the same image.- This is not the Eiffel tower. It has moving parts and is way out to sea. That's beyond a shadow of a doubt and could have been proved by the time date record and my own official published records. No one goes that far out to sea without a record of it.
2. If it was the same I didn't prove who took it first.- Who's side are they on? Do you think my image is a derivative of his tracing!
3. I did not prove that the image was licensed from Istock.- I am exclusive! That's why I am exclusive. It's an infringement. Illegal copying. Who said anything about them licensing it?

So I wrote the infringing agency and I got a very positive result:

Dear Mr. Martin,
I am contacting you on behalf of Crestock Corporation and our parent company Masterfile Corporation in regards to your infringement report about Image No. 400-04419914.
We take copyright infringement very seriously and appreciate you bringing this matter to our attention.
This image has now been removed from the collection and our websites, and an investigation is ongoing.
If you have any questions or concerns, do not hesitate to get in touch with me directly.
Sincerely,
xxxxxxxxx

I saw the vector image a few minutes ago when I started this thread; I can confirm that it is now not present on their site.
The lesson here is to talk to the people who are actually publishing the offending work: they are the ones responsible for the publishing, and theirs is the reputation which may be sullied by improper publishing.

The other lesson here is to think carefully about the other agency involved, whose response to you is appalling: obviously it was the identical outline, obviously your photo cannot be derived from the silhouette (rolls eyes), AND they are unable to comprehend the obvious when it is pointed out to them while simultaneously not actually reading your letter properly.

Good outcome arising from honest communication :)

One less reason to be exclusive with an agency. Protecting against infringements was always one of the biggest draws.

Congrats Bradford... sounds like they actually do take copyright infringement seriously ... Good for them and you!

Good job Bradford! Much easier to track down stuff when you are exclusive. Pitiful that you have to do all of the legwork. That should be a benefit of being exclusive with an agency.