Weasels

• Vernon Robinson, a politician in North Carolina, used this photo from the New York Gay Parade in a "Twilight Zone" TV ad without credit (not 100 percent sure that I would have wanted credit for a "traditional values" ad)

• Costa Rica Tours (http://www.costaricatours.cc) uses the folded parrot from my Costa Rica story to advertise their birding tours

• Shawn Bonnough, Canadian Alpine Expeditions, sbonnough@computime.bc.ca. This tour company used five of my images, mostly from Alaska and New Mexico, to promote tours in British Columbia. Yes, British Columbia. Thus, tourists who wanted to see the two bears that I photographed fighting and who signed up for a Canadian Alpine tour would actually get within 2000 km of those bears.

  The actual piracy was accomplished by Gordon Currie, G.F.Currie Consulting, though both Messrs. Currie and Bonnough were informed of the theft. They responded that it was OK because it would be difficult for me to sue them across the Canadian border.

  On the strength of some of these pictures, Canadian Alpine was able to get featured in a least one print magazine (which ran one of my photos without any credit) and they also got listed as a "Top 5% site" by Pointcom, whose review noted the quality of the photos.

  Here's some email from Mr. Bonnough, responding to a message that he mistakenly believed to have come from me...

  Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 00:41:11 -0700
  To: philg@MIT.EDU
  From: sbonnoug@pris.bc.ca (Shawn Bonnough)
  
  >Are you the photo thief, if so you suck!
  >> Weasels
   
  Interesting way to spend your time....................
  
  We removed your photos a long time ago after you informed us of our
  mistake, but without anything to do with your time except cry the blues
  over your dead mongrel and harrass people on the web, I guess you
  wouldn't know anything about real life now would you. So I am going to
  teach you about real life.
  
  Find something else to do with your time or the next correspondence that
  you send me will be forwarded with a cheque to the " Fuck-You internet
  police" that DO NOT operate within the law.
  
  You are about to turn your serious psychological problem into a "very
  serious problem.  You just used your last free ride...........
  

• Corey Friesen and Rick Mullarky, (coreyf@desteo.com), senior copywriter/editor at Desto.com and art director. They wanted to use images off of our site for banners and onsite destination features. When we refused to accept their offer of a $20 donation to use images in banner ads and told them to use Corbis and PhotoDisc, they said that they were "too busy to ask permission."

• ServInt, an ISP in McLean, Virginia, hosts the porn site oh-my.com, which uses an altered image from photo.net on its gateway pages. The porn site operators did not return a complaint email and do not identify themselves or their corporation, beyond saying that "all wording and content are copywrite [sic] AFC Consulting." The ServInt folks took no action despite three complaints. The ServInt managers seem to be Reed Caldwell, Eric Trager, Mike Gibbs, Ray Hodel, and Jeffrey Carl. They don't have personal email addresses on their site, but probably sales@servint.com will reach most of them.

• Raymond Jolin (ray@intellisys.net), a system administrator at Intellisys Internet Inc. When notified of unauthorized and uncredited usage of my image http://www.intellisys.net/serene/ (to advertise a video for sale), responded

  Intellisys is an ISP. The site you noted below is one of our customers.
  They are in no way associated with Intellisys Internet Inc. We are not
  responsible for what our customers use the Internet for and refrain from
  getting involved with copyright disputes of our subscribers.
  

  Of course, thanks to people like Jolin, it would be difficult to have a dispute with his subscribers since he doesn't reveal their name (we only know that they are serene@intellisys.net; I've subsequently learned that the video purveyor was Alan Cardenas).

• James Boldman (jamesb@ez.ezones.com), used at least one of my images to advertise some kind of pornography site ("ezones" from the Connection Group). As far as the NIC is concerned, the other responsible parties for these servers are Scott Christ and Tony Rios (of Compass Communications, Seattle, Washington), neither of whom responded to email.

  

• Richard Pocklington (pockling@sfu.ca), used one of my Orangutan photos without credit on his lab's Web server (the Breden Lab, breden@sfu.ca). This normally wouldn't upset me since I give academics free use of my images even in hardcopy forms, but Pocklington seems to have a pretty bad attitude. Here's the reply that I got after one of my users hunted down his non-credited usage:

  i was never aware that specific credit to you needed to be displayed
  

  copyright is impossible to implement in the current media environment our university has a specific cancopy agreement that allows us specific exclusion from many copy restrictions as long as single images and small text fragements (up to a full chapter of a text) are reproduced for teaching purposes only.

  Pocklington doesn't seem to understand that usage with credit might be considered fair even without payment, but that usage of an entire photo without any credit or payment is not fair legally or ethically.

• Randy Appleton (randy@euclid.acs.nmu.edu), used the burning car picture from the servers chapter of Philip and Alex's Guide to Web Publishing. The photo was presented as a large JPEG with my email address stripped out (normally this is in the border on the lower right). It was also on an index page with no hyperlinked credit. When I brought the situation to Professor Appleton's attention, he complained about the "nasty tone" of my letter.

It's a shame that people cannot appreciate your art or at least show their appreciation through payment for use of your photographs. I am a wedding photographer in the Northern Virginia area and have fought agaist copyright violators. In one case, a videographer that was at a wedding which I photographed, "borrowed" my photographs to fade in and out of because he lacked the skills or creativity to capture it on video. In this case, he ignored the copyright on the back of the photographs and ended up with a "fee" (threat of lawsuit) of $ 200.00 per photograph the he stole. He also was forbidden to distribute, sell or give away any additional copies other than the one the Bride and Groom had previously received(which by the way was a rough cut without proper sound or editing). Do I feel sorry for the Bride and Groom? No, because they could have prevented the theft of my photos by not giving the prints the the videographer. It probably does not matter to the Bride and Groom anyhow, because they would just probably copy the video tape. In all honesty, I have in the past let videographers borrow my images, some for free and some for a small fee such as $ 20.00 per print, but they have all asked prior to using my images. I probably would have let the videographer use these if he had asked.

I also have sued a Bride and Groom and a local photo store for copying my proofs and making enlargements. This suit resulted in an award equal to 12 times the amount that I would have charged for the photographs. The photo store was not held liable because they had a copyright notice posted by the self serve machine, but the machine is no longer self serve and they ask each customer if they are copying legally. I can appreciate your List of Weasels page and commend you on having it.

Bob

-- Bob Thayer, January 2, 1997

Your site is very cool. I detest the people who stole your work without giving you due credit. It has happend to me before and hence I share the sentiment. BTW, your photos rock!!, man you should be marketing all this stuff neatly and make some real dough (do it yourself, agents suck). Good Luck. http://www.iit.edu/~surbal

-- Balakris Subrama, January 20, 1998

From the weasel Richard Pocklington <>

Your fairly insightful comment <>

Furthermore, university cancopy agreements are generally only valid, as "Dick" says above, 'for teaching purposes only.' When we had an instructor here that used a similar defense (for similar activity) we pointed out there was a difference between holding a picture up in a class and making it available to the entire globe. His argument is attempting to say that his usage is covered under the "Fair Use" provision of the copyright law. Fair Use works for informational purposes (as if he were saying "this is a sample of Phillip Greenspun's work), for critique purposes (as if he were saying "this is Greenspun's picture of an orangutan, note the shadow detail") and then parody has special protection (as in "this is Greenspun's orangutan with Monica Lewinsky"). Just posting a picture because you like it or because you need an nice image of an animal is not valid and violates copyright. Academic circles are pretty twitchy about intellectual property anyway (which makes his response somewhat surprising). So if this guy is an untenured professor you can make his life pretty miserable by pointing out to his superiors that he is publishing your image without credit.

-- Jon Spinner, March 12, 1998

I have a job as a "copyright assistant" at Washington State University. Even universities must obey the copyright laws and a BIG part of my job is to obtain permission from legal owners to use images and video from the WWW and other sources. Sometimes it is difficult to track down the true owner, as so many people have pirated things that I cannot find the original source. Good for you, prosecuting copyright violators is just the same as prosecuting shoplifters in a store. Just because it is on the Web does not mean it is "free for the taking." If everyone has this attitude, some great sites like this will cease to exist because the authors/inventors/artists will tire of the public stealing their work.

-- Susan Bentjen, March 30, 1999

I know what it's like to have my pictures stolen and I know the feeling. I run a site with about 2000 photos of graffiti from Warsaw and many a site and magazine has stolen a photo. Actually, I've even had an amusing experience because of this. I got a magazine from someone who I met for the first time (the editor).

I said to him 'These are my photos, from my site!'.

He denied it.

Until I came upon a photo where I was standing IN the photo! Then he came clean. But it's a shame...

And it's a shame the way people have no respect for the fact that every single photo you take is at least an hour of your time. At least! Buying film, learning to take pictures, developing film, making prints, scanning. All these things take time, not only money. Money I can always make, time I'll never get back.

-- Jedrzej Kostecki, June 13, 1999

I came to the realization, about halfway through this page, that effective marketing of one's slides on the internet seems to go hand-in-hand with falling victim to the "weasels." Remember that if you are selling use of an image, previous exposure in a given market can really do it damage, especially if the abuse is being carried out by a person or business with an unsavory reputation--and when is it not? When trying to see things from an art director's perspective (whether pro or a de-facto art director for a mom-and-pop business), I too would pass by an image that had become "tainted" or "stale." Context carries meaning, and by attaching their message to your photo they are changing the message of your work just as if they had appeared at your shoot and, at gunpoint, insisted that you endorse their product/idea/site/opinion. The problem then is how to stop it. Like many have concluded, they can't be arsed to spend several thousand prosecuting the violation of a copyright on a photo whose use MAY bring in one or two hundred. Worse, the weasels selected your photo for a reason--it was the best they could find for the purpose (and possibly your best; why would you display anything else?). This means three things:

+ Your photo is now stale in a good market (like Phil's bears for travel/tour ads)

+ Not only have they nicked the best photo of yours they can find, they have crapped all over anything noticably similar.

+ They are deriving use that is worth money, you realize as you eat a dinner of tunafish and think of that F-5 you'll never afford (well, I lost some of you there)and see that you can't win.

BUT this you know already.

I just got done looking at Moose Peterson's site, where he has gone to some length implementing what appears to be an expensive and by no means foolproof way of preventing theft. Many of us don't have the resources for that. Some of my friends who do not understand the value of creative works have even commented that it seems "anal" and wonder why we make such a big deal of it. I explain, but it occurs to me that many people just don't know WHY it's such an issue or HOW MUCH it hurts us.

As far as I can see, the best possible way to protect our images is to educate the public about this issue. Abuse will always occur, but hopefully we will be able to sour public attitudes to this behavior to the point where it carries significant shame. Public attitudes have influenced behavior in many ways, from the reduction of littering to the regular use of seatbelts. That which is unanimously agreed upon has the greatest chance of becoming custom, and maybe even law (how nice would that be to prosecute these thieves much like the cable companies prosecute illegal hookups?)

Probably the biggest thorn in my side from all of this is how helpless you feel when this happens, and how badly contact with some of these backward freaks can ruin your whole day. I myself go to great lengths to avoid vastly unpleasant people, and I am glad that I have not had any experiences quite as bad as what I've read about here. Still, it seems to me that this was probably the motivation Moose had for his new system; no matter how well off you are, dealings with these people affect your quality of life. Many thanks to Phil for hosting this list, it is a very necessary step in the right direction. Next time some weasel raises your blood pressure and takes two years off your life, post his name to the list. Then go out and share your story, educate the uninformed, cultivate people's opinions. You can feel some sense of relief knowing you did something about it, and it didn't cost you thousands of dollars. That's my two cents worth, thank you for your time.

-- w.s. austin, July 2, 1999

People who steal others work are LOSERS.....

Plain and simple.....

-- Marika Buchberger, August 13, 1999

Sooner or later someone is going to come up with a theft-proof way of digitally watermarking an image. Until that time what you could do is only show small unedited thumbnails. For the larger linked image just hack out a chunk in a complex area of the image, say 20 pixels by 20 pixels. If you want the uncut version of the image, you need to apply and have it sent to you. You want to be a filthy weasel and steal it, well, you've got a lot of hassle with PhotoShop to try to recreate the lost area. It ruins the full enjoyment of an image, but so does copyright theft.

-- Gavin Walker (Yokohama, Japan), August 16, 1999

Actually, the idea of a large image composed of smaller squares is interesting for another idea. You'd need a lot of server processor and storage space, but you could, in theory, display a large image as many images side-by-side. I suppose the pirate could still do a screen capture or even spend time compiling the images by hand back into the original form, but it would make it a little harder. Then again, that means my visitors can't grab the image for their own, more-appropriate uses. (I like to grab images and play with them in Photoshop, for instance, just for fun)

-- Tony Beeman, September 9, 1999

The scary truth is that, at least to some extent, the technology to prevent redistribution of images (mainly video, apparently) is already here. Where to find it? Porn sites, of course: the cutting edge of internet-based multimedia technology. Oh, the irony.

-- Nick Sweeney, September 30, 1999

With regard to the comment above about porn sites pioneering anti-theft technology on the internet, there really is nothing new under the sun. Purveyors of salatious material have been early adopters of technology for centuries. Printing, engraving, still photography, movies and video were all pressed into service early in their histories for example.

-- Robert Bryett, November 20, 1999

Just a comment about the first listing on this page regarding Raymond Jolin, an employee of Intellisys.net - I cringe when I see people condemning employees of an ISP for quoting the "party line"...

At times, in past jobs, I've had to state that my ISP couldn't be held responsible for the content of a posting or web page. Naturally, that put me, as a person who hates abuse of the Internet, in a sticky situation.

That didn't mean that I supported copyright infringement, or one of our users flaming someone else on Usenet. What it did mean was that our legal department had told my boss in no uncertain terms that we were not to get involved in the matter without passing it through legal first.

I don't support copyright infringement in any way. I am not led to believe by Raymon Jolin's words that HE supports copyright infringement, just that he is powerless in his position to do anything about it. If it's still a problem, go over the person's head, but condeming them as a "weasel" and as a supporter of copyright infringement is painfully harsh. Some of us have to make a living and it's not as if we're selling crack in the streets, we're just responding in the way our legal departments tell us we have to respond.

Alan Cardenas is the weasel, not the poor guys who happened to provide him ISP access. Don't shoot the messenger.

-- C at Stanton, January 3, 2000

I See A World Where We All Treat Each Other As Equals

Well here is an alliterative, and may even create a valuable job for some hacker to create a virus (don't like virus's). How about creating a virus attached to the photo that would do some kind of damage to the storage drive, like erase it. If an image is transferred and not registered, upon registration a key could be used to remove the virus for that site. Then posting a very clear warning of the potential damage for unauthorized use of said image. This would scare away all but worst of infringes, if this could be established as a world standard then people would be diligent to make sure that any photos used were properly released. At this point the virus actually become a program (a good thing). How about it Philip can you write some kind of pearl script that would solve this copyright infringement problem?

BTW I am not implying your a hacker, Quiet the opposite. Nothing but respect for you and all that you do.

Lloyd Shugart Creative Director Photographer eMakeover.com

If your reply is an important message please CC a copy to studio413@uswestmail.net

Dont forget to visit emakeover.com

-- Lloyd Shugart, January 19, 2000

A virus could not be written in perl and a virus would not work anyway. Any virus you could write would be specifically for a single image editor. Therefore, if you write one for photoshop, it can't attack Paint Shop Pro and so on. However, there is a really good solution to this problem. Use the Macromedia Shockwave plugin. It will display the image, but will not allow the person to save the image. True, Shockwave costs a little bundle, but it's worth the extra pennies.

-- Nate Matias, March 26, 2000

Most image-thieves are male webmasters, and I'm sorry to say that I've found that they're more likely to comply with a notification from a female than a male. My friend Jon and I are both photographers. When he sends copyright-infringement emails about his company, he gets compliance from about 50% of the receivers. When I send copyright-infringement emails about my company, I get about 95% compliance.

Now here's the kicker. When *I* send copyright-infringement notices to websites on Jon's behalf (regarding his company), I still get about 95% compliance. I'm not even the involved photographer, but these guys fall all over themselves to be nice to me and remove the images.

Is that juvenile or what?

But it leads me to suggest that male photographers might consider creating a "female secretary" entity to use for their first notification to image-thieves... or asking a female friend to send the first notice.

-- Lorelei S, June 9, 2000

I don't agree that this is the best way to view human nature.

I once was strapping my 1 year old into his car seat and forgot my wallet in a shopping cart. I realized it on the way home, and by the time I got back to the parking lot, it was gone. Of course I expected to never see it again. When I returned home, there was already a message on my answering machine from the finder, and directions to his house where I could pick it up.

Life is just one big pleasant surprise when you expect people to steal your stuff.

-- Robert Rohatensky, July 18, 2000

about photo piracy off sites: FOR ME THE IDEAL WOULD BE FOR BUYERS TO SEND ME MONEY VIA PLASTIC.l ACTIVATE SOMETHING THAT WOULD ENABLE THEM TO DOWNLOAD THEIR SELECTED PRINT(S) HOW FAR AWAY IS THIS SCENARIO? MAYBE AN 'HONEST BROKER'WOULD BE REQUIRED.. IN LIGHT OF THE EBAY SNAFUS..CANUCKER.

-- claude miles claude miles, July 24, 2000

(This is in regard to Shawn Bonnough) The fact that people can feel normal, and/or take credit for something that isn't theirs is absolutely crazy to me. I might just be soft, but to not only accept, but promote these pictures (which i might add are not even of what is being advertised), i mean, how could one do this and live with themself? And on top of that, to be snide and rude to the person who he gave no credit to for making himself a success! People like this are the antithesis of what the world needs.

(Please excuse my horrible writing, im only 16)

-- Steven Kraft, August 9, 2000

I am at the top of this list and I NEVER used a SINGLE IMAGE from this site!

I use Corbis and Photodisc quite a bit, but often they don't have an image that is specific enough, or of high enough quality to use on our site... I came accross Mr. Greenspun's admirable collection and wondered if he would be interested in the same terms that these other sites use... Our editor sent off an email.

We received a reply from a woman who signed off as the Business Development person for Mr. Greenspun-- she said they were too busy to even consider such a small deal, and that we should use corbis and photodisc...

Our editor was a bit miffed at such a dismissive blow-off, and he wrote back a message warning that this 'too busy' attitude could lead to more people using Mr. Greenspun's images without his consent.

I heard nothing more about it until someone told me my name was on a site which accused me of using stolen images.

Apparently Mr. Greenspun took the reply to mean that we used images and did not comply with his copyright terms? I think he should have looked for a stolen image first... none was ever used...

I've written to Mr. Greenspun without reply, and so I bring my rebuttal here--

I have never used, nor do I intend to use any images from this site.

put me on a list of someone who helped write a grumpy email, fine.... but please take me off this list.

Rick Mullarky

-- Rick mullarky, August 15, 2000

If I decided to become a lawyer I'll remember this and help you sue these people for free. What dorks. I'm in college so you might have to wait a few years.

-- Ben Welch-Bolen, October 21, 2000

This is probably a very naive suggestion, but would it be any use to have 'copyright (your name)' printed on each photo in a contrasting colour (using, say, Photoshop), in letters so large that trying to blank them out would render the pic unuseable?

Darryl Gray

-- Darryl Gray, October 26, 2000

I think Darryl Gray's idea of adding a copyright message to all images doesn't really work. Of course, adding a copyright message in big, bold letters will be difficult to remove and thus it will protect the image. However, it will also ruin the image. And small messages that do not hurt the image, will probably be easy to erase.

-- Patrick Hudepohl, January 5, 2001

I worried about copyright for ages on the net, and after reading Philip's angle on it have given up.

I tried the 'no right click' JavaScript, kept my images small 72 dpi's, and placed them within Shockwave Flash and Acrobat files.

All affected how people accessed my site much to the detriment of their enjoyment and ease of use. No Right Click means users who right click to Go Back or to Bookmark are miffed. Small thumbnails can be interpolated up. Flash files can be pulled apart with freely available software. And Acrobat can take too long to download.

In the end I believe most people are honest and I am not going to let the Weasels take the enjoyment from the honest majority. I am lucky that my income comes mostly from commissioned work and turning a blind eye to copyright infringement doesn't bother me financially (yet!). However emotionally and artistically I would feel violated.

-- Robert Edwards, January 28, 2001

I have a slightly different perspective on adding a small copyright notice to each image. Yes, it could be erased; however, most people that steal images are doing so because it is easy. It's so much easier to find an image without a copyright notice than to touch up an image that has one. It's the same principle we all use when safeguarding our physical property: we take measures to protect ourselves, but they aren't perfect. I have a deadbolt on the door to my house, but it could be picked by somebody who really wanted to get in. Does that mean it doesn't serve its purpose? In general, you just have to make it hard enough for somebody to steal your stuff that it's not worth the effort.

Andrew

-- Andrew Certain, June 12, 2001

You clowns! There is no way to successfully protect copyright infringement if the law doesn't punish offenders consistently. The little "watermarks" and web tricks cannot stop people from copying media. One might say, look at the doomed secure digital music initiative, they have all sorts of technologies to thwart copying using proprietary digital speakers and so on. Realaudio and liquid audio have very robust copy protection as well. Yet, in the end, we aren't looking at bizarre images or listening to music distorted through encryption, at the end, we will *always* have the clean unencrypted output. So Streambox VCR, or even a simple audio recording program, Photoshop or the Print Screen key will bypass even the most sophisticated anti-copying measures. Of course, the best current (June 2001) technology I've seen to prevent the "right click save to disk" system is simply a javascript call to the image, but even that doesn't stop a cache search. BTW, my e-mail is traumerei@operamail.com, not manganous@aol.com.

-- J Viray, June 26, 2001

When I was in my late teens I used to submit pictures to local newspapers, I didn't get much money, just seeing my name was enough. So it used to really annoy me if they went uncredited. While I'm not a professional photographer I can sympathise with all of this. (I write software, probably more pirated than pictures.)

There is one idea you could look at borrowing from the software community. Micro payments. A lot of software amateurs are asking people to donate small amounts of money ($1-$5) if they like their programs. Sites like PayPal allow the transfer of such small sums at next to no additional cost. This is obviously not for corporate use, but would be ideal for individuals who don't intend to sell on derivatives of the work for profit.

My wife and I write and make amateur videos (she won the Scottish First Reels competition this year). Quite often we would like to use photographs we find on the web, but these competitions stipulate that copyright clearance must be obtained in advance. We'd gladly pay a few dollars for the right image.

-- Stewart McSporran, July 12, 2001

Many people who are doing the wrong thing are really just doing the *easiest* thing.

If you want people to ask permission before using an image, give credit for using it, or pay for it, perhaps you could build that into your web site.

On this site, when you click on an image it goes to an HTML page with a larger image and a caption. You could also put a form there requesting permission to reproduce the picture, or a paypal click for a fee to pay for web site use, etc.

A verification system could even be built in which asked for the URL they were posting the image on, then scanned that URL periodically to see if a credit caption was present.

It'd sure take the wind out of the arguements and excuses we've seen from the weasels.

-- Mike Combs, June 12, 2002

If the purpose of archiving so many pictures is so that they can be marketed the why not resrict access to most of the images to those whom you can monitor access from and more or less trust. In other words save your most valuble (potentially profitable) images for those who request to peruse them. It seems to be a cake and eating it too type of deal except that it is completely reasonable to expect to eat your own cake. Either the images are displayed for all to enjoy and in Phil's case learn or you can hord them for the buyers. But I don't have to worry about such matters.

-- ihave ebola, November 1, 2002

If you have real problems with people stealing your images, you could do a simple registration system.

Offer a couple demo pictures with a watermark across the middle of it. If people want to view/download further images, they have to register (with confirm. email).

A couple places I visit for stock photography do this. It gives you email addresses of who is downloading your photos, and I for one don't mind registering to download photos if I can see by the demos that they are good pics.

-- Mary Fredborg, January 16, 2003

For those photographers concerned about copyright infringement of their work, I think the Flash idea mentioned above is a good one.

Another alternative is the use of DigiMarc technology (http://digimarc.com) which puts an invisible digital watermark in each image that allows it to be identified and tracked. Some applications like photoshop automatically look for such a watermark in every image and display a copyright notice when the image is opened. The watermark survives some image manipulations such as resizing. They even offer a service that hunts for your images across the internet and notifies you by email if they find any. Of course once you do find a ripped-off image, the watermark doesn't help you any, except possibly to help confirm your claims in court.

I am not associated with DigiMarc in any way, nor do I use their service.

-- Matt BenDaniel, April 30, 2003

An interesting question seems to be if pointing a camera against some existing object that you neither own nor controle should actually be considered art-work or intellectual property. To me, claiming ownership to a picture of others art-work (an ancient temple, an haute couture dress or a couple of boobs owing their 'grandeur' to a skilled surgeon) is also copy-right infringement - maybe not in legal western sense but morally and ethical.

-- john hartmann, April 29, 2004

Thanks for the inspiration Phil. Your Hall of Shame was the inspiration to a little Hall of Shame of my own.

-- Jim Harrington, May 13, 2004

I think a number of peoples comments above, miss the point of Philip's gripes completely.

Philip is the creator and sole owner of the copyright to his works, he is not trying to extract as much value as possible, only request that people who use his images give attribution and link back to him.

Being such a nice guy he has even created a license to make things nice and easy and legal.
The morons who cant be bothered to adhere to such a simple and limited license deserve to be listed here.

-- John Holroyd, August 30, 2004

I am featured as one of your "Weasels",and I notice that I am still there and this has been over 7 years ago...time to let go..don't you think. People don't grieve and whine over dead relatives for this long. Also I noticed that you never printed my response to your first e-mail...which was .....wait a sec...oh yeh I don't remember.... because I do have a life.

-- Alan Cardenas, September 21, 2004

I can think of two good reasons for preserving this discussion thread: history and education.

One lesson I take from this discussion is that one's behavior catches up with you. If you do a Google Search for "Alan Cardenas," you learn about his use of Phil's photos without permission and see that 7 years later, he took the time to post a comment lampooning Phil for leaving this discussion up on the web. Sounds a bit like shifting the blame to me, though others may see it differently. In any case, both what happened and people's perspectives are put out in the public forum.

Personally, I think that provides a great benefit to people concerned with the general issue of copyright protection.

-- Michael Berney, September 25, 2004

Just to get the facts straight for Michael's benefit..it was 1 photo and was downloaded from a "free" website and there was no copyright markings on the photo. And after recieving the e-mail the photo was promptly removed from the page. No blame shifting here...I found the photo...I used the photo..I was warned...I removed the photo that quick. Oh the Humanity of it all!!!!

-- Alan Cardenas, October 6, 2004

Philip Greenspun,

By playing judge and jury (in this self-regulated kangaroo court that you preside over) you are damaging peoples careers and reputations.

Your biased, un-researched and untrue comments (and misinformed fan-mail by your groupies) is disturbingly one sided. I dont blame these people for believing that you are a victim, and posting their thoughts (because you certainly play the victim convincingly well, for a proffessor from MIT who should be a little more computer savvy than you are) but I do hold you accountable for the damages that you are causing.

You freely admit that I did not steal your photos, then you condemn me and post a letter that you mistakenly assumed was from me??

I committed no crime, then I paid your extortion money! But still you slander me, remove me from this forum and honor the arrangement we had. ANd remove all references to my name from all aspects of your website (including misinformed groupie comments that reference myself).

Your behaviour is more questionable than those who you falsely accuse, especially for one who claims to be so high-minded and morally superior.

Shawn Bonnough

-- Shawn Bonnough, January 15, 2005

To Shawn Bonnough,

It doesn't matter whether you stole Phil's photos; I think you should stay on this page just so that everyone can see this -

"the next correspondence that you send me will be forwarded with a cheque to the "Fuck-You internet police" that DO NOT operate within the law."

- and know who they're dealing with choosing not to deal with when they look you up on Google.

-- Foonly Barton, January 17, 2005

Good one Shawn!! I know I commited the atrocity of using one of Phil's pics...but as I explained before...I had obtained the picture from a website containing a multitude of pictures..none of which were copyrighted. Had this been the case I would have given Phil the affirmation that he so craves. I have shown this website to my children, who laughed and said way to go Dad!!! To me it's not a Hall of Shame...because I did the right thing and removed the photo after the e-mail from Phil. Be that as it may for a Weasel I haven't done that bad in either my personal or professional life. Out of 5 children, 1-MD, 1-Attorney, and 2 pre-med and my 13 year old daughter is a Sophomore in High School. The point made here is that we have all gotten on with our lives, despite the "photo" incident...why can't the rest of you??

-- Alan Cardenas, January 21, 2005

Alan, I guess the problem was that the photos on that website were copyrighted, I'm sure that if somebody told you can take that Porsche 911 you saw on the street, because they claim it belongs to nobody, you would be a little suspicious of their claims.
I'm not going to try and justify Philip keeping you on his list, maybe those "Fuck-You internet police" that DO NOT operate within the law paid him a visit and left him feeling mightily pissed :o
Anyway have you actually asked him to remove you?
He does after all list several methods of contact, and I don't think the fact that he publishes this site means he reads all the comments. In fact, having read his books, I'd bet it's a very infrequent past-time of his.

-- John Holroyd, January 29, 2005

John,

Thanks.

Alan

-- Alan Cardenas, February 9, 2005

Speaking to those comments that say, "The photos were not copyrighted".

This is just simply ignorant. Even a cursory examination of copyright law would reveal that any work is instantly copyrighted to the works author the instant it is created.

Ignorance is no excuse for the original violation, nor is it justification for the sour grapes.

Also, if anything that is posted here is factually inaccurate and such inaccuracies can be substantiated, those listed here MAY (and I stress MAY) have recourse in the U.S. court system. Something tells me, though, that most of Phil's facts are right on the money.

-- Cameron Watters, February 23, 2005

Cameron,

I have never used the "ignorance" defense, and no I didn't take a even a cursory look at the copyright law. My point is that I admitted the wrong doing, righted the wrong immediately, but still have to be labeled as a "Weasel" some 7 to 8 years later. Time to let it go and move on, I am sure there is more "cannon fodder" out there than my one mistake those many years ago.

-- Alan Cardenas, May 27, 2005

You heve certainly rec'd alot of attention from your List of Weasels site, if that is what your looking for. I guess you can count yourself lucky if this is the worst thing in life that has happend to you. Most of us have other things going on to spend so much energy and mental resources harping about such things. I am in the music industry, and even tho I do make part of my living with music, I have not wasted 13 or 14 years whining about someone recording me off the radio and then playing that recording at a wedding dance. Move off your bloody pedistal and get with life lessons.

-- Valerie L'jaye, July 12, 2005

Valerie,

I couldn't help but notice a good portion your comment was regarding yourself. Try looking outward, and do so openly, and perhaps you'd see that Phil is just doing what he thinks is right. By being a conscience a person, that IS his right. After all, you are what you focus on. I'd rather hope more people would be focused on doing the right thing--no matter what it is--than not. If not, what kind of "life lesson" would that be?

And please, use proper english. There could be english readers reading.

-- Brian Downey, September 22, 2005

Philip Greenspun

It is Shawn Bonnough again.

Please dont remove this again but leave this letter posted for your mis-informed fans to read.

I am asking once again for you to remove me from your website as we agreed that you would do if I made a donation to SARA!

The donation that you requested was made and I produced a receipt (you said it was the point you wanted to make) You made your point and I made a donation. If your point was ethics, then I remind you of your ethics.

I now live in Idaho and your website just cost me another job. After the high cost immigrating from Canada and securing employment in Idaho, I was fired once again because of your website. After three weeks of employment with a promising job, my boss was made aware of your website by a colleague of mine and terminated me. He cited questionable ethics as the reason for termination. When pressed he explained it was your website, not anything I had done personally. But I have finally found an employer that has enough balls to put it in writing that your website was the reason for the last 10 years of chronic under-employment. I have a degree in business and cannot get a job in a gas station because of your website. My lawyer in Boston needed me to prove damages and now I can.

But I don't want to fight, I grew out of that! It is expensive and I dont need to prove anything to you or your fans. I did not steal your images. But I did correct the problem. I did not benefit, but I have suffered financially. I have done all that you have demanded that I do yet you have honored none of the agreements you have made.

So I politely remind you that I did not wrong you.....Gordon Currie (my crooked website developer) did! When the mistake was brought to my attention I corrected it quickly. If you feel justified in admonishing him on you website then continue to do so, you will still have a whipping boy to make an example of, but remove my name because I did not steal your images.

However, after I corrected the mistake, you continued to harass me and disguise your voice in phone calls, it is surprising what they teach at MIT.

You threatened me and insisted on $2,000.00 per image even though I removed them a week later?? You still wanted to be paid, what about ethics??

And I remind you and your fans that I did not financially benefit from the actions of my web-developer who mis-appropriating your photos.

My company never sold a single trip! We couldnt get a permit from the government. The website was completely removed??

For the record, your denial of writing emails to me saying "I suck" is questionable ethics as well. You harassed me then posted a response on your website that you "mistakenly assumed was from me" (sound familiar) ......whereas your mail was from philg@mit.edu THAT is your address isn't it??

You also state that 5 of your images were used when in fact only two were used (and then quickly removed 10 years ago. Are you claiming that the other 3 images were your own when they were not? Isn't that copyright infringement?

It is admirable that your readers love to rally behind you so blindly when you feed them mis-information....but lets end this ridiculousness.

I called Gordon Currie (the questionable web-developer) recently and you will be pleased to know that he has also suffered considerable financial losses in his business because of your website.

Additionally, the stress has taken it's toll and his health is now dramatically failing. After I insisted that HE was the paid professional (and should have known better) he stated that my problems, were not his problems.

From such a brilliant mind, that has the capability for creating such beauty, is that the legacy you really want to leave Philip?

You have proven that you are capable of greatness, yet you waste your time with these lies created simply to harm others. Why are you doing this when you know the truth, and you have made promises that you wont keep? Is it more money you want? You want me to write another check for a crime that I did not commit?

So please remove me from your website. You have shamed me, extorted me, embarrassed me, financially crippled me, humiliated me in front of friends, family and employers and you have and taught me never to hire a web developer again. You have won.

It has been 10 years....... please...... remove me from your website as we agreed so I can get on with my life Thank you. Shawn Bonnough

-- Shawn Bonnough, November 8, 2005

So funny, years later.

When I was first, mistakenly, listed as a weasel (see my note above), I was really distressed and worried that infringement accusations would damage my rep.

Looking through it all now, though, it's actually quite amusing.

It will be clear to anyone looking through all this that Mr. G. is a bit hysterical when it comes to infringement and that *many* have received his treatment, deserved or not.

I'm doing well, btw, just got a great new job, and my web art stuff continues to find an audience.

you can check it out on http://www.rickmu.com

Maybe someone should make an interactive piece that is only stolen images from this site? could be fun :-)

cheers

Rick Mullarky

-- Rick Mullarky, December 22, 2006

Gray's idea of adding a copyright message to all images doesn't really work. I agree. Really, copyright is not a tool of people's ambitions.

-- waredesign, June 12, 2007

God bless that modern photos are signed automatically.

-- snusik pusik, July 17, 2007

hah! my mother was searching around for photos of halloween costumes. She stumbled upon your site and saw this photo:

http://photo.net/photo/pcd2335/14.jpg

IT'S ME! I'm the Sack Of Potatoes from 1995!

thanks for posting this picture.

- gigglechick

-- erin gigglechick, October 28, 2007

I would like to show worldwide a chinese company, that had stolen my photo and photos of my product on Alibaba website. I wrote them, but any answer! They used also the photo of Pinkograf business card! Pinkograf is a italian company specialized in graphic desing and print of transparent business cards, and has a gallery of products on Alibaba! There a chinese companies stolen products and photos!!! Incredible! This is the link of the steal of image: http://canonprintingonline.en.alibaba.com/ I'm afraid! This is the second chinese company that had stolen my photos!

-- daniela poggi, August 5, 2009

"I committed no crime, then I paid your extortion money!"

As a veteran police officer, I can tell you that every time someone pleads innocence and then turns around and offers to make it right anyway, they are guilty and know it, just don't have the guts to admit it. Mr. Greenspun, you have a fantastic website on aviation training. Thanks for allowing the rest of us to use your fine work.

-- Lou Gregoire, August 25, 2009