Illegal photo shoot outtakes?

[barrington]

The problem in this instance is us publishing the obscenely high-resolution images that frequently make up the gallery. CelebrityPictures informs me that they may be used (without payment) by less morally abundant foreign magazines in their copy, thus depriving his company of income.

A situation that, although we value the pictures, we do not want to form an active part of.

[Hazzle]

Originally Posted by barrington

The problem in this instance is us publishing the obscenely high-resolution images that frequently make up the gallery. CelebrityPictures informs me that they may be used (without payment) by less morally abundant foreign magazines in their copy, thus depriving his company of income.

A situation that, although we value the pictures, we do not want to form an active part of.

Aye, thanks for clearing that up. My only concern was the validity of the claim, but if you've been satisified it's valid, that's good enough for me. Now that it's been established, I'm in total agreement we don't wish to be part of that sort of activity, as although we've done nothing wrong, others can use that behaviour to do wrongful acts. I'm glad that's been resolved.

[barrington]

Of course the enormous headache is that since pictures rarely come watermarked or with any identifying marks whatsoever (and they are delivered at least second hand) it becomes impossible to know which images are outlawed from publishing.

There's really no answer to this problem.

[Hazzle]

Originally Posted by barrington

Of course the enormous headache is that since pictures rarely come watermarked or with any identifying marks whatsoever (and they are delivered at least second hand) it becomes impossible to know which images are outlawed from publishing.

There's really no answer to this problem.

Yeah, and of course you can't just go yanking down pictures left right and centre until you can be sure there's been a problem.

Really tricky situation...

It's quite simple. All the pictures are being used illegally unless you have the consent fo the copyright holder to publish them on the site the same as when you download an mp3 without paying or using a copy of a software program unlicensed.
Obviously the web is awash with illegal useage buts it's very easy for the copyright holder to find this with a google search. If they have identified you and notified you then they have good cause to take legal action. There are legal firms happy to take on these claims on a no win no fee basis as it is pretty easy to prove. One of the bigger picture agencies made over a million dollars in legal compensation last year from illegal useage. It will be the person or persons running the website who will lose out financially and thed fact that you have already discussed it on the site and not withdrawn the pictures is only giving them more evidence which they will be storing. Looking at the pictures mentioned it's opbvious they are not scanned from magazines which although still illegal does mean it's less of a problem for them to be sold on commercially. These pics are hi res and have been stolen by some other means. I would be inclined to comply with their request and be a bit more careful what you allow on the site in future. By only allowing lo res scans from published pictures you are not aiding the distribution of images which can be used commercially. As they say "It will never happen to me" but remeber the kids parents who were fined for the kids downloading of music

[Leonie]

Luckily the business was sorted roughly 2 years ago

Also, I think Baz said something about the consent you mention. It doesn't have to be written approval, as long as no one is disagreeing with you using them, you have implied consent to use the pictures. After all, we are a fairly innocent Keira Knightley fansite - most photographers don't take offence from putting a bunch of pictures up for fans to drool on.