Tracking Down Stolen Images with TinEye
I produce a lot of content online. Most of it in the form of images. Whether they’re desktop wallpapers at MyBestDesktops.com or photos I post to my Flickr and JPG accounts, I like to think that the copyright information that accompanies them would deter folks from ripping them off to use for their own financial gains. Of course, that’s super naive of me, and TinEye.com reverse visual search is here to help track down the offenders.
Basically, what TinEye does is take any image you submit to it and try to find wherever it’s being used online. The easiest way to use the service is by installing the Firefox extension.
So, with that out of the way, let’s check out some of the thieves using my imagery without permission:
MintProperty.com used my Empire State Building desktop for a party flyer:
Before
After
My Dark Sky desktop wallpaper is getting used quite a lot. Here are a couple examples:
Before
After
After...
After Again!
My High Voltage desktop from Hong Kong used for the Zap Stick 800,000 Volts Pink Stun Gun:
Before
After
And my Manhattan Bridge desktop used also for a party flyer (extra funny because I’m in the lower left of the image):
Before
After
These are just a few of the ways unscrupulous folks online have been ripping off some of my images. Not a ton that can be done about it, but at least with TinEye.com, I can stay up to date with some of the offenders.
I should remember to visit that site often…
Posted in Design, Technology, Tips, desktop, wallpapers
May 5th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
At least in the Manhattan Bridge shot, they kept your logo + URL… partial credit?
May 5th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
I agree, TinEye is nice.. sometimes.
It’s not a very big data base and therefore doesn’t find a lot of things. For instance, I have a lot of photo’s on the net, and when I put in a picture of mine for TinEye to find.. it comes back for 0 results, which is a lie because they’re on the net, and I know they are. Lol
May 5th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Ever heard of steganography? Google it… the find tools on sourceforge. I accept five dollar bills….
May 5th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
^then^
May 6th, 2009 at 12:28 am
Why not just release the art under the Creative Commons license?
May 6th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
So do the owners of the buildings and/or bridges get to cry fowl for the theft of their properties images? What about the “artist”/architects that designed said landmarks? What makes the theft of your work any different from your theft of theirs? If you have artwork that’s original from start to finish I’d say different story, but if not…
May 7th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Spook, if you actually understood copyright in the slightest, you wouldn’t actually have any of those questions. Instead, you come forward being combative and act as if a photograph is somehow less copyright-protected than a painting. Please do the research before you start slinging mud again, eh?
May 8th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
http://tineye.com/search/98e5e67b96272917d91130c6a06402925949b606
May 9th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
I didnt ask if a photo less protected than anything. Photograph or painting is the same to me. What I ask is why is your use, whether you be a photographer or painter, of someone else’s work (in this case the real world product of an architect) any different from someone taking your your work and using it for their purpose?
May 10th, 2009 at 9:41 am
If people didn’t “steal” your images, no one would see them or ever give a fuck about them. Pretentious artsy asshole. You take a picture of a public building and claim ownership? You have to be kidding.
May 10th, 2009 at 9:50 am
You should be honored that people are using your art. I would be.
May 10th, 2009 at 10:36 am
Post something on flicker then bitch when it gets used.
There are tools and apps to keep this from happening.
I think you probably just want the attention
May 10th, 2009 at 10:38 am
Spook your an idiot. i thought about writing something intelligent that made you look like a troll but im sure everyone already sees this. by your standards i would have a problem looking at it or describing it to someone else. theft of intellectual work is limited to the duplication of an object to serve its original purpose or for other personal gain. which is limited to like taking a picture of art and then selling it as the art or makeing a fake painting, a building or structure is not a work of art, besides the traffic cams on the bridge… you think they should have problems with takeing pictures of speeders since they are on the bridge?
May 10th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
“Spook your an idiot” Hmm. At least the last three responders seem to disagree.
“a building or structure is not a work of art”
Now who is the idiot? I’ve seen many a building that I would consider quite fine works of art. I’ve seen original works by sculptors made entirely of steel that I would consider fine works of art. Why is the architect any less of an artist? He worked with pen/pencil (yesteryear) and now often as not with a cad program and digipad but the root process is the same. He takes an idea in his head and turns it into reality. What makes him or his works any less worthy of the title “art” than some schmo with a camera and fill lights?
“by your standards i would have a problem looking at it or describing it to someone else.”
How you made this incredible leap of non-logic is beyond me.
“besides the traffic cams on the bridge… you think they should have problems with takeing pictures of speeders since they are on the bridge?”
Are your creative juices flowing at the moment, IE, are you stoned? What exact point are you attempting to make here?
My guess is that you decided not to write something intelligent because you lacked the capacity to do so.
May 10th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
“What I ask is why is your use, whether you be a photographer or painter, of someone else’s work (in this case the real world product of an architect) any different from someone taking your your work and using it for their purpose?”
A few points:
1. The pictures do make use of architecture not designed by the photographer, but they also make use of many other elements owned by no one; namely, the sky, the angle at which the shot was taken, and the particular lighting that lends to a photograph’s effectiveness. I don’t particularly love these pictures on this blog, but to consider a beautiful and striking shot of the New York City skyline at sunset, for instance, as nothing more than “theft” of the architects’ ideas is somewhat foolish, because the picture would involve so much more than the buildings themselves.
In other words, a photograph of a building can be extremely original, if it is captured at a particular angle or time of day. Such pictures deserve to be protected from unauthorized copy as much as any other art.
2. The issue here is that certain individuals/groups are capitalizing on original ideas that are not theirs. As I explained above, a photograph of a building is the original idea of the photographer, even though it makes use of the original idea of the architect, due to such factors as lighting, angles, etc. But these flyers that people have made using his pictures are nothing but blatant ripoffs. I can’t imagine that the author of this blog would object to his photo of the Empire State building being used in a clever collage of pictures of the Empire State building, for example, or if someone took the picture and photoshopped it enough to make it original in its own right.
Does that make sense? My mind is not completely made up on the subject, so I’m very willing to discuss.
May 10th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Lee: I would agree to a certain extent with some exceptions. I would agree about the dark sky wallpaper for instance. If there was a photo at it’s root it has been modified enough to be considered (to me) as original work.
That logo that was pulled by someone for a stun gun ad looks like it might be a completely original creation and I wouldn’t fault the creator for being miffed at it’s use.
The bridge and building OTOH are clearly the focus of the compositions and I see nothing especially unique about them that would make me grant “original artwork” status to either.
May 11th, 2009 at 2:02 am
Who cares. Information wants to be free, and I actually feel these images contain very little real meaning, just more modern fluff.
May 11th, 2009 at 5:44 am
Clearly some parties care and I have to admit I have a bit of a chip when it comes to these issues. When I walk into a studio with my family and tell the photographer that I want this kind of picture taken in this kind of way with XYZ background and then I’m told I can’t have the negatives because the photographer owns the rights to them it kind of cheeeses me a bit. I contracted the service and PAID for it. Whatever the fruits of the labor should be mine.
May 11th, 2009 at 8:49 am
This issue is more difficult than I originally thought.
I think we both agree that it is possible to take original pictures of buildings. The question then becomes: At what point does a photograph become original enough? A straight-on, daytime shot of the Empire State building is not very original, because probably millions of such pictures exist in the world, and the photographer is not reimagining the Empire State building in a new and unique way.
However, I would argue that both of the images in question on this blog – the bridge and the Empire State building photo – are “original enough,” as both photos capture a quality of these structures that was pretty clearly not intended by the architects. The picture of the bridge is more obvious – the color of the bridge is different, and there are tons of other elements to that picture, including other buildings and the photographer himself. You can’t possibly claim that the designer of the bridge envisioned an orange version of his bridge against a yellow sky; that’s just absurd.
To put it another way – it doesn’t matter that the bridge is that particular bridge. It could be any bridge against any city, and the picture would have a similar effectiveness. Thus, since the photograph does not depend on that particular bridge for its effectiveness, I think we can say that the photo is “original enough.” (This isn’t to say that it’s impossible to have an original, unique photograph of the Eiffel Tower or another extremely unique structure – it’s just a little harder to define what that originality and uniqueness would be.)
The picture of the Empire State building is also “original enough,” in my opinion, because the fact that it’s the Empire State building is secondary to the dark and imposing mood of the picture. You could replace the building with the Chrysler building, for instance, and I don’t think the picture would lose too much of its power.
This is an intriguing debate. Spook, I would like to hear your opinion on Marcel Duchamp’s work entitled L.H.O.O.Q. : http://www.chess-theory.com/images1/70104_marcel_duchamp_lhooq.jpg
Should da Vinci be rolling in his grave over the blatant use of his most famous creation? Practically every art historian says no, that the L.H.O.O.Q. is original enough in its own right, as it effectively shatters the incredible mystique and subtlety of the Mona Lisa with such a simple addition.
May 11th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
This is for all the simpletons who don`t get it.
People who make images, photographs, illustrations and the like, do so to make money. These images make them a profit. If you steal the images and make a poster, you just put your hand in their pocket and said:”you won`t be needing this cash!”
IT`S STEALING!!! HELLO!!! Any one who thinks this isn`t so, is probably doing just that. STEALING!!!
When it comes to Monet or Da Vinci, who cares. They have been long gone and copyright laws are not in place to protect those.
Spook-If you pay a photographer so they can take your picture, you get a picture. NOT the negatives. The result of the labor is what you get. The negatives are the artist by-product of the medium in which it was rendered. That equals to you having for a painting of you made and when you are handed the piece, you want the paint cans, because YOU PAID FOR IT?? NOT!
Lee-The angle, light and whatever else the photographer chose to use to frame and compose the picture are the only considered part when judging the original characters of a picture. It is what makes it original.
It`s not about the structure or building as in this case the difference again in the choice the art was chose to be rendered. If some one chose to recreate and rebuild the Empire State Building (Designed in the 20`s completed in 1931 so there wouldn`t be any claims of ownership other than by NY)to be created elsewhere, then the building creator would have to be researched for the obvious permission required.
May 11th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
creamyart, I’m not sure if I’m misreading what you wrote, or if you’re even disagreeing with me at all, but nothing you wrote contradicts anything I said. It seems we agree, to me…
May 11th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
I do go further into explaining why if, you didn`t design the building, you can own the copyright to the picture. Mostly because Spook brought the issue and I quote,
“spook Says:
May 6th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
So do the owners of the buildings and/or bridges get to cry fowl for the theft of their properties images? What about the “artist”/architects that designed said landmarks? What makes the theft of your work any different from your theft of theirs? If you have artwork that’s original from start to finish I’d say different story, but if not…”
There is no theft unless the same building is being constructed elsewhere, as the art (the building design) would be being render in the same medium (construction).
I do agree the angles, light and other identifying marks make it original and in fact an identifiable asset as proven by TinyEye.
Just because millions of people travel to NYC each year and take millions of pictures of the same monument means that those million pictures, even the ones that look alike are protected by the same law.
After all, real photographers go to lengths to study, frame and perfect angles and lighting just so they can produce an original each time they shoot a tired overly done subject.
May 11th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Nope, nothing you can do about it. I guess if it bothers you that much you can stop posting your images online.
May 11th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
LOL Oh things can be done about it. But it would require getting nasty and maybe an attorney.
May 13th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
you can get the firefox plugin and just right click an image and select search on tineye instead of opening the site and uploading everytime. I use it for porn.
June 6th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Boo hoo hoo, buddy. Don’t upload your stuff to the Internet if you don’t want anyone else using it.
You got informationdemocracyowned.
June 7th, 2009 at 7:33 am
Boo hoo is what you will say when someone sues you for all you got. This has nothing to do with democracy, information or OWNED, but the right of the artist to make money from their creation. Unauthorized users of such images are stealing.
Ricardo FAIL.
August 9th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Two cents here:
You are not “using” architecture by taking a picture of it. Generally, one uses architecture by doing things like “living in it” or “working in it” or “making it part of their functional life”. It is intrinsically not art. One can reimagine architecture works as art, one can make a conceptual piece out of the process of building something, whatever, art can really be everything but not everything can be art.
So, when one uses the word “original”, what does one mean? Does one mean “merit”? Or does one mean “as created first and only by a certain person”. Now, originality, legally speaking, does not care about concepts or subjects in photography. Kind of like free speech, everybody should be free to take as many pictures of whatever as they want (although this is probably is not true for a lot of things, laws are made up as we go for this kind of stuff).
Does the angle of a picture of a building really make a difference? Yes and no. Those pictures of a bridge and a building, those pictures were taken by Patrick first and only by him. He is the original owner of the content. In the bridge one, he even modified the picture so it becomes a work of design, leaving photography behind completely. It is his design that he did first and only himself, with a picture taken by him first and only himself on top of that.
So no: he is not “using” a building for his design. He is using a picture he took. He doesn’t really care, otherwise he would’ve commented on his own blog post to the questions spook had, and so this whole conversation was more about spook than it was about Patrick.
Finally: You pay for a service, that is, having a picture taken. And for a product, that is, a picture of you. If you wanted to keep the negatives, you probably would’ve had to sign a contract for them, stating that you are the owner of those negatives. Since you didn’t, you are not.
September 19th, 2009 at 5:48 am
“Pretentious artsy asshole. You take a picture of a public building and claim ownership? ”
As soon as you click the shutter, you own the PICTURE. Period.
September 21st, 2009 at 9:10 am
Stop baiting the trolls! >_<
October 8th, 2009 at 5:36 am
[...] few months ago, I wrote about tracking down stolen images TinEye. That tip generated a lot of conversation about how much of an idiot I am to think I could own a [...]