Heads up all ...

Received word tonight from a fellow railroader, who does a lot of rail photography work, that earlier today he found three of his images that were apparently stolen and used without his permission. They appeared on the "official" Facebook page and website of C&O 614. Two were on the Facebook page, and a third was on co614.com itself. He claims his original copyright information was cropped out of the photographs, and new "data" superimposed claiming the photos were used with permission, and all rights owned by the organization who maintains the web site.

This contact has always been very credible, and I have no reason to not believe his claims. I am told a message requesting a cease and desist of using his images has gone out.

I want to make it clear that the true copyright owner is not accusing Mr. Rowland of stealing the photos. He is well aware of a rather notorious individual who has set up previous bogus "official" Facebook pages in the past, and simply wants his photos removed. He strongly suspects that the third party in question downloaded the images from where they had originally been posted, removed the copyright data, and then passed them off to Mr. Rowland's organization as his own.

If you have photos of the locomotive in question that you have uploaded, please check the sites in question. Should you find any images of yours that have been used improperly, please contact the website and let them know.

"Theft of intellectual property is the sincerest form of flattery" -- Peter Gabriel

Removal is highly straightforward. File a DMCA takedown notice with Facebook. http://www.facebook.com/help/400287850027717/

and/or the relevant ISP.
http://blog.patyuen.com/lessons/photogr ... mystified/

"piff" the content goes away, no fuss no drama. Of course for some, the drama is the point.

We just did an updating to the co614.com site and my webmaster tells me that several photos he used in this exercise were misrepresented and he has promptly removed them.

The good news is that we've had thousands ( literally) of photos submitted for our use so there's far from a shortage of candidates.

My next picture will be my first so I admit to having difficulty relating to all this copyright angst about train pictures that 99.9999999999% of the general public could care less about,so I guess it must relate to pride in authorship or something like that??

At any rate the copyrighted treasures in question have been eliminated and replaced by equally good pics "owned" by individuals glad to see them being enjoyed.

Happy New Year.......Ross Rowland

Once you hit upload there is nothing stopping a 9 year old kid from downloading it, doctoring it up and resubmitting it somewhere else. This is also the case with adults who suffer from multiple internet personality disorder. The number of places your photo can end up is without limits and there is no level of protection that can be added to make it secure other than not uploading it to the internet.

As for social media. Beware of any social media pages that are official unless you are directed from the actual corporate website. There are so many crazies out there.

Multiple Internet Personality Disorder? Isn't that term one of my 'creations', or at least something I brought to this august forum? A guy from the Pottsville area was my inspiration, IIRC- Confused tank cars and steam locomotives? Hangs out around quarries?

Flattered that the term got remembered and used-

Happy New Year!

EDM

No, Mr. Rowland ... it is not about "pride in authorship." Copyright protection is FEDERAL LAW. You can't steal someone's intellectual property. They created it, so you must obtain permission from them to use it for your own purposes. One would think you would understand that, considering all the legal disclaimers your website added to the photos, and the "terms of use" plastered on your page.

And was the snarky comment really necessary? I made it clear in my original post that the individual in question believed a third party misrepresented his intellectual work. The fact that you chose to make a snide remark, rather than just apologize and state that it was taken care of, offers at least the suggestion that the party who used the photos without permission wasn't as far removed from your website as originally believed.

Whether you like it or not, a photograph belongs to the person who created it ... and that person has a right to say "no" to usage they don't approve of, or charge you a royalty fee for its rights. Just because some folks give stuff away for free, doesn't mean everyone has to.

One could easily make the argument that since Mr. Rowland owned the subject of the photo that he should maintain the right to use any photo of it. Disney does the same with their parks. You can not copy right a picture of their castle. And in turn any photo you take of Disney they have the right to use.

I know it is not the same as a train rolling down the track in the wide open, and I am very aware of the copy right laws. But I agree with Mr. Rowland that it is kinda of silly to get worked up over someone using a photo you took of a locomotive. Especially when it's being used by the locomotives owner on their official page. I would be proud that it was chosen.

The purpose of copy right is to protect property that is making you money. These photos are certainly not make this guy any money if the locomotive owners are not willing to pay for them. It makes me laugh.

Your rationalization makes me laugh.

No ... the purpose of copyright is to protect the rights of the person who owns the work. How could they make money from their efforts if others were allowed to steal it and use it free of charge?

And the Disney argument doesn't wash, because Disney's property is private property, The contractual terms are included as part of your admission to their property. That is a far cry from the comparison you are trying to make. Under your misguided reasoning, you could claim that by parking a car in a publicly viewable lot, the vehicle owner should own the rights to any images taken of it.

The owner of the locomotive has every right to decline on paying for images ... but, that doesn't mean the image owner is obligated to have his work used against his choice, or for free. Perhaps the image owner would have felt honored if he had been approached and asked if it was OK to use his images. Many years ago, I did quite a bit of rail photography, and I've had images published as an organization's promotional photos. In each instance, the organization approached me first, and asked if it was OK to use the images. I was happy to grant them use, free of charge, and gave them a signed release indicating such.

Knowing the photographer in this instance, I am fairly certain he would have done the same had he been given the courtesy of a formal request.

There is nothing silly about it. If you want to use images for promotional purposes, you either get the photographer's permission, or you open your wallet and pay for the right to use them. Owning the subject matter doesn't entitle one to use the images for free.

The fact that somone would defend the practice of stealing others' work doesn't make me laugh ... it's actually pretty pathetic, if you ask me.

I am a business owner with and own several copyrights. The fact that someone copyrighted a photo of a train is pathetic. It was not being used for monetary gain.

You should read all of the comment so you don't miss quote anything. I said I understand that taking a photo of a locomotive is different from Disney.

That's like me taking a photo of your house and copyrighting it.

Contrary to your earlier claims, you clearly don't understand copyright law. You are confusing trademarks and copyrights.

You don't undertake an act of "copyrighting" a photo. Under US Law (Title 17), the work is afforded copyright protection the moment it is created. Once the photographer releases the shutter, and creates the image, it comes under their ownership (excepting, or course, if they are hired to take the photograph, at which point it becomes property of their employer). It is given copyright protection whether it is published or not, and whether it is officially registered or not. It does not have to be used for monetary gain to be protected. If the owner of the photograph doesn't want an organization to use it, it is their right to say no. That's what the law says, whether you agree with it or not.

As far as your example of a photo of my home ... you might want to reread the laws. Depending upon when my home was designed and constructed, would define who owns the copyright. Under certain circumstances, the home owner owns the copyright to the building and it could not be photographed without their permission. In others, it would be admissable to photograph the building, and have the photographer of the image be the copyright holder.

That is why, from a perservation standpoint, it is a good idea to not rely on outside submissions for promotional photos of your rail equipment. There's too many dishonest folks out there. Either find someone on staff who is good with a camera, and have them do the "official" photos for the organization, or hire a professional to do it. It is probably better to be cautious, and protect one's self legally.

So how do we know there was not a person standing right next to him that took the same photo. Unless you were a photo forensic or whatever, nobody could tell the difference. The point I am saying is it is just a little silly, and mr. Rowland is correct it is about pride and ego. The fact that you spout off the law just means you are trying protect your ego.

The only reason I responded to this thread is I believe your response to Mr. Rowland was an unjustified. He admitted the mistake and that it was corrected. His remark after was his opinion (one that I share) and I did not feel that it was out of line.

OK, at least now we understand. It is OK for Mr. Rowland to protect his ego by making snide remarks, rather than act like a professional and leave his opinion out of it, but not OK for a photographer to stand up for the legal rights afforded him by US law. Thank you for clarifying that double standard.

As was stated earlier ... had he stuck to facts, and not interjected an opinion, there would have been no reason for a response ... "justified" or not.

About 30 years ago, I was working part-time as a reporter for a small-town daily newspaper. A couple of us discovered that a paper in another nearby town, though not in direct competition with us, was using stories we had written without attribution. We knew this because they were word-for-word the copy that had appeared in our paper the day before. Anyway, our editor called their editor and asked him nicely to have his reporters do their own work. The practice continued, so our publisher called the other guy and made the same request with the same result. In the end, our paper's lawyer did whatever was necessary for the paper's daily product to be copyrighted, and it said so right under the date on the front page of each edition. A couple of days later, another one of our stories appeared in the other paper, and our lawyer burned up the phone lines to the other outfit's lawyer. After that one phone call -- shazam -- those other guys started doing their own work.

That's what copy right means. The newspaper, magazine, individual or corporation owns the work and has the right to grant or deny others the right to copy it. Period.

If the intention was to have a few photos taken off the website and Facebook page, a simple email to the webmaster would have sufficed. This is a thread on a message board, a public message board. The intent would then seem to be to embarrass above all else. Seems silly to go to such lengths but some people must have more time on their hands than others I suppose.