Oh well at least it is flattering to know people like my photos so much they want to steal them :) Not much I can do about it, I am finding my photos more and more around the net.
Are they really that bad? These stolen threads seem to be popping up weekly, yet no one steals my stuff. Sure, I'd be p.o'd if someone ripped off one of my photos- but not getting ripped off is really messing up my ego.
If any print were in fact sold shouldn't the profits actually be returned to the actual photographers?
otherwise it could still be profitable to steal photos - just canceling the account wouldn't be much of a punishment in that case. not to mention smugmug hasn't the right to profit off of copyrighted images either. IMO their ignorance of whether the images were copyrighted or not does not negate tha fact that the photographer did not agree to their TOS and therefore the site does not have the right to profit from the photos either.
How is the fact that Smugmug allows images available for sale by default any different from Shutterfly, Ofoto, Snapfish, and other similar sites?
It's not. Most of the upload/share photography sites cater to the average user who can just manage to get their pix online, to share holiday shots with family members, etc. I'd bet that the average person is pretty aware that if they take someone else's images from the Internet, and then upload shots into their personal galleries - wherever that is - that they shouldn't be doing it to begin with, that they don't own the shots and shouldn't be selling them. I've seen numerous other complaints about this regarding Shutterfly, most recently regarding a Robert Plant fan.
I'm pretty sure that with the millions of photos uploaded at all of these sites it would be impossible for businesses to review and approve every image that every person ever uploaded, hence the reliance on the ToS. Instead of blaming the site, how about rooting for some personal responsbility on the part of the users? Is ignorance of the ToS an excuse for theft? I think not - just like ignorance of the challenge rules here on DPC does not excuse rule violations and prevent DQ's.
All of these sites are in business to make money, and they do so by profiting from sales of prints -- just like Walmart, Costco, CVS, Rite-Aid, or any other convenience store. Some are better than others with regard to vigilance on copyright issues (ie Walmart) and then we see forum complaints about that as well.
So the answer is that service businesses should inconvenience the majority of their customers and make it harder for the average Joe to make little Jane's 1st birthday shots available for Grandma and Uncle Sam to purchase as a keepsake? C'mon.
I don't see any wrongdoing here on the part of Smugmug; they were responsive to user complaints of violation, and per Karmat's comments appear to have handled the situation in the same way that our beloved DPC would have handled it.
How is the fact that Smugmug allows images available for sale by default any different from Shutterfly, Ofoto, Snapfish, and other similar sites?
Those (printing) sites are generally not "browsable" by the general public -- you have to specifically "share" the gallery with someone for them to view/buy the photos, and you can't mark up the price and collect a profit, like you can on hosting/gallery sites (e.g. SmugMug, DPC Prints).
... I don't see any wrongdoing here on the part of Smugmug; they were responsive to user complaints of violation, and per Karmat's comments appear to have handled the situation in the same way that our beloved DPC would have handled it.
I see major wrongdoing on the part of smugmug, and on the part of the account holder.
I just now tried to access the account. The gallery that is opened by the link in the OP is indeed password protected. But by using the other link, the one to the homepage that was posted by Judi, I was able to put images (Norman Rockwell, etc.) that I know are not the property of BECKSTEAD or of smugmug into my cart for purchase. If they wish us to believe that they really respect copyrights why are they keeping themselves in position to profit from the sale of stolen images? How long does it take to hide the entire account from public view? Did they really think it was going to pass muster for them to password protect the gallery that had the images stolen from those who contacted them while at the same time pretending not to notice the magazines covers, NASA shots, and all the celebrity portraits? Come on, gimme a break. Somebody wake up that Andy fella.
all of the above, and then there's the horendous abuse of apostrophes. if i see one more plural written as 's, i may flip. or the it's/its conundrum (it's - contraction of it is, its is possesive)
Well, you guys are all taking it a lot better than I would be.
--
If I noticed that someone's gallery was full of stolen photos, that were for sale for $.19, I would most definately see to it that, after that company was contacted over 24 hours ago, that the site was shut down. I'd definately hold smugmug responsible for any and all losses due to prints, views, downloads, and redistributions of any and all of my stolen copyrighted photos that they are knowingly allowing to be displayed and sold without my consent.
I cannot believe that a site like smugmug would allow this guy's gallery to still be in operation.
--
You all say that they are doing a good job -- well I say that's nonsense...obviously the guy isn't Normal Rockwell, and obviously he hasn't travelled to outerspace to shoot the earth or done shoots for national geographic...this is really, really annoying me.
I think whoever is in charge of that site has some explaining to do as to why the gallery is still in operation!
