What to do when someone "steals" your photos...

[thomas998]

That's very odd indeed. What I find even stranger is the one linked in the Wikipedia article has noticeable more detail. To the point that I'm not even sure your photo could be photoshopped into the one on wikipedia.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...erella_Castle.jpg/819px-Cinderella_Castle.jpg vs http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5302/5594197470_dfe3b63b72_b.jpg

I have to agree.... When I looked at the largest version of the one on Wiki and compared it to the one on the flickr page the one on Wiki has a lot more detail in the brick on the castle as well as some other spots... It would almost seem like the one used by Wiki is the original and the flickr is the copy.

 

[englanddg]

I have to agree.... When I looked at the largest version of the one on Wiki and compared it to the one on the flickr page the one on Wiki has a lot more detail in the brick on the castle as well as some other spots... It would almost seem like the on used by Wiki is the original and the flickr is the copy.

Wiki also has the file metadata on it. Click on "file usage".

 

[BoarderPhreak]

I'm seeing some blanket statements that are probably misleading people to either do nothing or sue, depending on which poster you are inclined to believe/follow...

They're not "blanket statements" but in fact, copyright law.

But you are correct in that most private individuals do it because of ignorance of the law. You can usually send them a polite email and they'll remove the offending photo(s) or make concessions as far as attribution, etc.

Businesses however, should immediately be sent a C&D. Failure to comply should be followed by legal action, if you're up for it. Otherwise these companies will continue with this sort of behavior, thinking it's okay to just steal anyone's photo they wish. Especially if they're using it commercially.

 

[CP_alum08]

I have to agree.... When I looked at the largest version of the one on Wiki and compared it to the one on the flickr page the one on Wiki has a lot more detail in the brick on the castle as well as some other spots... It would almost seem like the one used by Wiki is the original and the flickr is the copy.

I guarantee you that the Flickr image is not a copy

 

[sporadic]

I guarantee you that the Flickr image is not a copy

I explained it in post 19 on previous page.

 

[CP_alum08]

I explained it in post 19 on previous page.

the images are identical. If you take both, reduce the opacity on one, and layer it over the other they are an exact match. When I edited the photo my photoshop skills were not what they are now and it looks like I probably merged two layers that were not lined up perfectly, making the image slightly blurry. I am trying to find the original file but so far have been unsuccessful.

 

[englanddg]

Yes, because someone went so far as to steal your photo which wasn't uploaded to your flickr at the time (not sure where else you may have hosted it, but since you can't find the original, I'm not sure you are either), upload it to wiki (which doesn't pay, so zero profit), fill out all the details of a Creative Commons license for others to use it, attribute the photo to themselves publicly along with contact information for questions about the photo and it's use, note that the picture was taken by their mother, and filter in all the metadata to the image itself so that Wiki...

Yep...I'm a believer!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cinderella_Castle.jpg#filelinks

 

[sporadic]

the images are identical. If you take both, reduce the opacity on one, and layer it over the other they are an exact match. When I edited the photo my photoshop skills were not what they are now and it looks like I probably merged two layers that were not lined up perfectly, making the image slightly blurry. I am trying to find the original file but so far have been unsuccessful.

You're correct. The blurriness was making it seem as if the images were taken from different distances, but scale looks the same front to back when stacked. Good luck finding the original!

 

[BoarderPhreak]

Those images are ALL the same, albeit with differing sizes, sharpness, etc. Something's rotten in Denmark.

 

[thomas998]

You're correct. The blurriness was making it seem as if the images were taken from different distances, but scale looks the same front to back when stacked. Good luck finding the original!

To be honest there is still question as to which was the original. It is rare that an original is blurrier and of poorer quality than the copy.

 

[I_heart_Tigger]

@CP_alum08 what happened when you contacted the person who claimed the photo on Wikipedia? I assume you at least asked what was up. I know that would be my first step in the same situation. Did they have any response?

 

[PhotoDave219]

I have an interesting issue to ask about and I figured I'd post it here because it has to do with copy write.

I somehow found myself on the Magic Kingdom wikipedia page today and the first picture that shows up is mine...and I did not put it there. I'm sure all of you are the same, in that when you see a photo of yours you instantly recognize it as being your own regardless of where the photo is. I have the photo on Flickr without a watermark but it DOES have the copy write on. Here is the odd part - the photo on wiki is credited to someone else (which i expected) but all the EXIF data has been changed! I'm not really mad or anything about it being on wiki without my permission but it does seem odd that the EXIF data was changed, no?! The coloring of the photo is slightly different but I'm pretty sure I uploaded it to flickr and then re-edited it and re-uploaded it again later.

here is the wiki link, the photo in question is the very first one on the right side under the old magic kingdom logo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Kingdom

and here is the photo on flickr - http://www.flickr.com/photos/cjbalogh/5594197470/in/set-72157626149007719

there is a man walking under the castle wearing a green shirt and the time on the clock is about 8:05. Thoughts?

Well thats 100% the same photo.

 

[englanddg]

Well thats 100% the same photo.

The issue isn't is it the same photo, the issue is ownership, at this point. The wiki page lists quite an honest and forthcoming list of rights and usage, the OP does not, outside of having the "original" pic at lower quality on their flickr uploaded far (years) later than the Wiki post.

I don't know which is the truth, but as a professional photographer, what are your thoughts?

 

[PhotoDave219]

The issue isn't is it the same photo, the issue is ownership, at this point. The wiki page lists quite an honest and forthcoming list of rights and usage, the OP does not, outside of having the "original" pic at lower quality on their flickr uploaded far (years) later than the Wiki post.

I don't know which is the truth, but as a professional photographer, what are your thoughts?

I want to see who can produce the original, unedited photo before I pass any judgements.

 

[CP_alum08]

I appreciate the people who have offered help with the situation, but at this point there are too many people calling me a lier and accusing ME of plagiarism that there is just no use in me reading, or responding to, any further comments. I will continue to try and contact the wiki person and locate my original photo but honestly it's not that big of a deal to me, it just caught me off guard and I wasn't sure what to do about it, hence asking here.

 

[pupulv]

I'm afraid there's nothing but off I can do...