Picture theft

it's ironic that the video is about lawsuits.

I feel your pain.

That's not theft, it's copyright infringement.

You should have put your name across the photo I guess.

Pfft, i'm sorry but it's funny that it's in a video that says "Misstreatment" and "Nintendo lawsuit".

It's part of making stuff and putting it online.

Everblue said:

You should have put your name across the photo I guess.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Even if the OP did, it would have been cropped out or edited out by some jerkass and the same thing would have happened.

People online have no respect at all for other peoples copyright/ownership of photos, but I have no clue how people could be convinced to actually give people credit.

Kotaku, for instance, has no business doing that and should know far better.

Finding the photographer and context of every photo of a person of significance you might use in an article seems like a logistical nightmare when there are no watermarks on it.

If people are non-responsive after your bringing it to their attention that sucks, I suppose.

Artists get their art "stolen" without credit too, which is way worse than just a photo.

If you ping Kotaku, they're likely to change it. Totilo's quite good about issues that are brought to his attention.

Yeah, copyright enforcement is shit for freelance artists and photographers.

This all is kinda' rough but unfortunately expected with the current wild west setting of the internet, images especially are kinda' passed around with no real source or credit done, because people want to use images as a visual media and digging into the copyrights of each photo is hard, and most people will just do a google search or from an article.

It can go deeper than this as there's some people who just literally do not care, and think even all drawn art posted online should be free to use with the creator asking nothing in return. There's a lot of entitled people in the world.

I feel this is one benefit to maybe come with the upcoming apparent changes to the internet, though a lot of negatives will come as well. It's a bit hard when good-natured people do it out of ignorance, laziness, or ease of use rather than out of maliciousness though. I make small little games, and I don't put any DRM on them, so I do have versions of my games pop up on piracy sites as "cracked" here and again, which isn't fun but is obviously malicious. Photography is a rough one since it's an invaluable tool and art form, but really easy to pass around and forget some people don't post their photos just for others to use freely. And the worst part is, I'm 100% sure I've ignorantly and unintentionally done this before myself on multiple occasions, and I think most have without really thinking about it.

Isn't this the reason why goggle lost the view image link?

Igniz12 said:

Isn't this the reason why goggle lost the view image link?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Yeah, I think so.

I wish I could find the photographers/authors of all the pictures I save, but doing reverse image search brings me to forums and 1000000 pintrest links, I have no clue how their supposed to just track you down and ask for your permission. Only way this gets done is if the author themselves ask, which unfortunately in your case gets ignored.

Igniz12 said:

Isn't this the reason why goggle lost the view image link?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

IIRC it was Getty Images who complained, but the reason was the same yes. Shitty to hear OP, can you somehow take action against this kind of usage?

Protect your copyrights

Smash-It Stan said:

I wish I could find the photographers/authors of all the pictures I save, but doing reverse image search brings me to forums and 1000000 pintrest links, I have no clue how their supposed to just track you down and ask for your permission. Only way this gets done is if the author themselves ask, which unfortunately in your case gets ignored.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

THIS IS WHY I LOATHE PINTEREST

What was the context of the photograph? Ive seen it for years and it still cracks me up.

It's easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission.

Watermarking your work or having your signature on there is probably the best way to protect it, or host them on one of those sites that don't allow saving of pictures.

I dunno.

I get your point, legally and morally speaking sure, I'm not denying that.


But this photo is probably one of your few ( only? ) ones that went mainstream and viral in a way. It seems your more wanting the attention and your name written in gold for everyone to see because of it.

What do you do with all your other images you take from here on in ? I know I'm disconnected since I'm not in the industry but are you a professional photographer, making a living from shots of videogame big wigs ?

Sadly, the laws that protect infringement rarely protect humans. Law is really only for the corporations.

I'm sorry that happened to you OP. I post art online and worry someone might use it for commercial gains and it's upsetting.

You have to wonder if a content I.D. system for the entire internet would work and what would be the ramifications to culture. If a writer could submit their text, an artist or photographer their images to a database that all platforms would be legally required to use. Then anytime someone tried to use something on Twitter, Tumblr, Youtube, Reddit, Imgur or here they'd get a message informing them of the origin, copyright and usage permissions and what type of accreditation or payment is required etc..

Corporations have algorithms protecting their interests. Putting the responsibility on an individual creator to track down and stop infringements on their own is unfair when you consider the million avenues their work can be illegally exploited. Plus the time and money involved.

Is information sharing, memes, and the transformative culture important enough to preserve? I think so within reason.
I feel individuals on social media and message boards should get more leniency when it comes to sharing. Accreditation should be mandatory, but many creators don't want their work shared, or would like to control how it is shared. As is their right.

Professional operations like Kotaku and Urban Outfitters- https://www.buzzfeed.com/mrdude42/urban-outfitters-steals-another-artists-work-hoiq need to have harsh legal and punitive ramifications for copyright infringement though. Game companies have to show providence about assets and they're rightly called out when they use someone's work without permission (like Uncharted 4 using art from Assassin's Creed 4). Kotaku should have been more responsible. I doubt anyone there would want their articles reposted in their entirety on another commercial site.

-I apologize if this is rambling.

Miyamoto is actually owner of the picture and since Nintendo owns miyamoto you are stealing their IP.

Ravelle said:

host them on one of those sites that don't allow saving of pictures

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

If you see it, you can ALWAYS save it.
Heavy visible watermark on photos is the way to go.

I have a site full of game images and they get taken all the time by websites and even books now. Thankfully, some of the sites and a few of the books credit the site. But a lot don't and I've had to contact some of them about it.

I don't mind it that much when it's just a few pics for an article, but when you're making a book full of images, you either play the games yourself and take your own images, or credit the source that saved you weeks of playthroughs to get those cool images that will make your book not look boring.

I have a site full of game images and they get taken all the time by websites and even books now. Thankfully, some of the sites and a few of the books credit the site. But a lot don't and I've had to contact some of them about it.

I don't mind it that much when it's just a few pics for an article, but when you're making a book full of images, you either play the games yourself and take your own images, or credit the source that saved you weeks of playthroughs to get those cool images that will make your book not look boring.

On the other hand: I get a bit annoyed when artists don't watermark their work... so many good pictures and artworks that I have no idea who made 'em and I'm too nervous to post/talk about without paying due credit.

Alienous said:

Finding the photographer and context of every photo of a person of significance you might use in an article seems like a logistical nightmare when there are no watermarks on it.

If people are non-responsive after your bringing it to their attention that sucks, I suppose.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I would imagine if you can't find the owner of the source then maybe don't use the photo if you're a publication like Kotaku. I don't think that's a good excuse tbh

Hasan Ali Almaci said:

I did way back, I got ignored. Totilo used it and credited it unasked when he used it for this
https://kotaku.com/5646886/triple-miyamoto

I thanked him for that

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

It's likely that the first time it happened was under Crecente, then.

Dice said:

On the other hand: I get a bit annoyed when artists don't watermark their work... so many good pictures and artworks that I have no idea who made 'em and I'm too nervous to post/talk about without paying due credit.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Right click in Chrome. Google image search. Almost certain to find it. Sort by largest resolution.

If you are in doubt about the ownership of an image and can't contact the owner don't use it, I don't understand how hard that can be.

Yarbskoo said:

That's not theft, it's copyright infringement.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Isn't that a type of theft?

Meh, it happens all the time. It happened to my video interview with Konami and when I leaked the Xbox One UI. Many places didn't credit me at all but I kind of expected that on the internet.

uh, OP, I took that photo

-shadow- said:

IIRC it was Getty Images who complained, but the reason was the same yes. Shitty to hear OP, can you somehow take action against this kind of usage?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Bit of a digression from the topic here but the funny thing is part of the complaint was it didn't drive people to visit the sites, yet functionally the current implementation doesn't either as you now receive the actual, un-cached (full size) image directly within the Google Image page.

I think what got the attention of various royalty free photo sites originally was Google had implemented a watermark removing algorithm a year or two ago, so users would be shown de-watermarked thumbnails when browsing Google Images. It was worked around by Shutterstock for example by adding random distortions to all their images.

Alienous said:

Finding the photographer and context of every photo of a person of significance you might use in an article seems like a logistical nightmare when there are no watermarks on it.

If people are non-responsive after your bringing it to their attention that sucks, I suppose.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

That is called doing the bare minimum journalistic research. Even if uncredited copyright still holds.

OP, I love the Foto btw, it really captures that child at heart expression

I don't get any credit for inventing lawl.

More on topic: That kinda sucks. The alternative is that pic getting not getting the exposure it ended up getting isn't it?

Alienous said:

Finding the photographer and context of every photo of a person of significance you might use in an article seems like a logistical nightmare when there are no watermarks on it.

If people are non-responsive after your bringing it to their attention that sucks, I suppose.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

If you can't find who owns it, the best thing is to not use it. The onus and priority is on you to find artwork you know the history of, not reproducing and ringfencing the exact images you want as sacrosanct to the piece and then shrugging, claiming that tracking the copyright down was too hard so you can reproduce what you like. I art edit a magazine and it sucks sometimes to be unable to find the source, but there's always another way to illustrate a piece rather than just shrugging and thinking that it doesn't matter. Most of the younger members of our staff seem to think that anything on the internet is fair game for reprinting in a title with a huge circulation right up until they go through media law training, the writers far more so than the art staff who are at least a bit more familiar with metadata and photography.

You dont own Miyamoto

Vilix said:

Isn't that a type of theft?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

No, because you cause "no damage" to the other person. Theft removes an object from the owner, copyright infringement merely copies it.

Quacktion said:

You dont own Miyamoto

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Was this going for the most stupid comment on the board award or do you just genuinely have no appreciation of photographers and the work they do?

Quacktion said:

You dont own Miyamoto

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

They own that specific photo of him. Just like how that one photographer owned a photo of TB from the LUL emote and TB couldn't use it.

Is the video monetized? Can you claim do the content ID thing?

Vilix said:

Isn't that a type of theft?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

In the sense of the word's definition, it is. Stealing doesnt have to be of anything physical, its perfectly fine to say "stealing an idea" for example, even if an idea is simply an abstract thing. The dictionary also gives examples of this. However, when it comes to the definition of law, you're not being charged with theft for copying something, then its copyright infringement.

Mifec said:

They own that specific photo of him. Just like how that one photographer owned a photo of TB from the LUL emote and TB couldn't use it.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Now thats fucked up tbh.

Kyuuji said:

Was this going for the most stupid comment on the board award or do you just genuinely have no appreciation of photographers and the work they do?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Why not both?

Quacktion said:

You dont own Miyamoto

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

They own that specific photo. Otherwise we could say that a musician doesnt own a tune because the instruments used in it isnt made and owned by the musician :P