Jump to content
Heritage Owners Club

Website using my Heritage Guitar images

Gitfiddler

By Gitfiddler
in Heritage Guitars

Recommended Posts

Gitfiddler Mentor

Gitfiddler

Posted
Posted

I don't have a copyright on any of my guitar photos, but maybe I should.  Not that I'm that great of a photographer, but over the years I've noticed my Heritage guitars being posted on other sites.  Maybe I should be flattered, but it a bit strange to see them.  I spotted one of my Gibson Johnny A. signature photos on Jack Baruth's site, but it didn't bother me. 

But when I saw a photo that was lifted directly from the HOC of some of my archtops being used as the banner for the Guitar Journal it seemed like an invasion of privacy. 

They should have at least asked me in advance of publishing in my view.  Your thoughts? 

Here's an example:  https://www.theguitarjournal.com/florentine-vs-venetian-cutaway-whats-the-difference/

Steiner Community Regular

Steiner

Posted
Posted

Does Legal Zoom have a cease and desist form?

You could always start the discussion and ask why they stole your graphics without consent.

By the by...  Nice shootin' Tex!

High Flying Bird Mentor

High Flying Bird

Posted
Posted

If someone uses an image of mine just for fun I have no problem with it but if a business uses one of my images I would be pissed.

totonka Collaborator

totonka

Posted
Posted

It never hurts to ask them for compensation, or at least attribution. Especially if it is bothering you. I've found that a polite inquiry can result in either a check in the mail or removal from the site or attribution.

Let us know how it turns out!

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Steiner Community Regular

Steiner

Posted
Posted

+1 totonka.

Good to see you around!

deytookerjaabs Contributor

deytookerjaabs

Posted
Posted

Photos online....all bets are off. 

 

However, I 100% agree with your sentiment. It's someone else' blog/site etc for their personal gain and they didn't bother to ask, kinda lame. 

 

Silver lining: they're your guitars!

Gitfiddler Mentor

Gitfiddler

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I received a courteous response from the website moderator, who agreed to immediately remove my images and replace them with a properly licensed one. 

I realize that images are pretty much fair game once posted on the inter-web, but a little courtesy goes a long way.  Just ask the author for permission!  I would have granted it, but request they show authorship.

Steiner Community Regular

Steiner

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, DetroitBlues said:

Ah, I was looking forward to seeing the pictures.  I saw the background photo and thought that's what you were talking about.

I thought the background photo guitars were his too.  One thing I know about Gitfiddler is he has a stunning bevy of guitars!

totonka Collaborator

totonka

Posted
Posted
I don't have a copyright on any of my guitar photos, but maybe I should.  Not that I'm that great of a photographer, but over the years I've noticed my Heritage guitars being posted on other sites.  Maybe I should be flattered, but it a bit strange to see them.  I spotted one of my Gibson Johnny A. signature photos on Jack Baruth's site, but it didn't bother me. 
But when I saw a photo that was lifted directly from the HOC of some of my archtops being used as the banner for the Guitar Journal it seemed like an invasion of privacy. 
They should have at least asked me in advance of publishing in my view.  Your thoughts? 
Here's an example:  https://www.theguitarjournal.com/florentine-vs-venetian-cutaway-whats-the-difference/
It was always my understanding that photographs are copyrighted at the moment of creation. But I'm not a lawyer.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

High Flying Bird Mentor

High Flying Bird

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, totonka said:

It was always my understanding that photographs are copyrighted at the moment of creation. But I'm not a lawyer.

That is true.  I have RAW files to prove most of mine.  I too have missed you here.  You have been to PSP.  You have the shirt to prove it. 

light-legs.jpg

bobmeyrick Rising Star

bobmeyrick

Posted
Posted

In the UK (at least) copyright belongs to the creator of the image. When I post images on the web, I usually resize them to a maximum of 800 pixels longest side. Since most of my photography is of jazz musicians, who are mostly decent human beings, I often get asked if they can be used on their websites or social media. Since there's very little money on jazz*, I'm OK with that as long as I get a credit.  Ronnie Scott's once used a picture of Wayne Krantz of mine without asking, and when I contacted them they were apologetic and offered me free entry to the gig. As it happened I couldn't get to that one, but got to see George Duke there instead.

Occasionally I get asked for a hi-res image, for which I ask a nominal fee. I keep the copyright, but give permission for the artist to use the image.

*As the great jazz club owner Ronnie Scott once said, "If you want to make a million running a jazz club, start with two million."

TalismanRich Mentor

TalismanRich

Posted
Posted

First of all,  shame on you for being such a damn fine photographer!   You,  Totonka and the Bird each have the eye for a great shot.   

While it's impossible to control things once posted on the 'net, there's no reason not to contact people who use your work for commercial purposes.   It they're making money off of it, then they can share.   In a lot of cases, its probably impossible to know who the original work came from unless you leave the metadata attached.   Then you can put contact info in there and hope they at least try to contact you.  

 

  • 4 weeks later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...