Wow Hatta, that's terrible. We all know it's your picture too, because that background is your trademark! Will you be contacting them for payment? At least a few free bulbs? Alana

It's on their sister site Easy to Grow Bulbs as well. Very disappointing.

Dear Hatta,

This is a serious and disturbing matter.

You are owed monetary compensation for the illegal use of your photograph (on two separate websites) for the purpose of advertising, selling, and soliciting purchases of merchandise.

Since both Willow Creek Gardens and Easy To Grow Bulbs are located in California, I am including a link to a relevant discussion of California Business law posted on the LawGuru.com website.

I would suggest that you post a question on this website explaining what has happened (you can do this for free) or that you contact one of the California attorneys who responded to the original question posted.

Here is the full contact information for ETGB:

Easy to Grow Bulbs, Inc.

2521 Oceanside Blvd, Ste A

Oceanside, CA 92054

(760) 754-0435 � Fax (760) 754-0193

I wish you the best of luck in resolving this matter to your satisfaction.

Sincerely,

Blanca

Here is a link that might be useful: LawGuru.com - California Business Law

In the event these nurseries catch wind of your finding, Hatta, please take a screenshot of the offending pages for your records. It is very easy to take a photo down from a website and it would become your word against theirs... though it would be strange to have that one flower without a photo. Might want to print off the coding too.

As a photographer, I'm offended a company would do this, but sadly, these things happen a lot. Fight them.

Ryan

They have been using that picture since they put out their Fall selections a month or so ago. All the while, I thought that Hatta gave them their permisiion!

Gezzzzzz....I cannot believe this happening!!!

Crucify them! Or will it be a Stoning?
Hatta Thats too bad about them "using" your photo for the website.But what a compliment eh? Obviuosly someone maybe a mistake and didnt realize that you would be upset over this.Maybe it was the best photo they could find to visualise the blooms of this Hybrid they sell.Maybe the site owner will have something to say to you in regards to this.It would be a good idea for everyone to use watermarks on their pix posted on this Public Forum.(I have always admired Blanca's watermark so skillfully placed.)
Peace and a rapid resolution

Compliment? Psch!! I get what you're saying Mark but use of Hatta's photo is blatant disrespect-- whether they meant to use his photo without his permission or not. Just because someone posts a photo on a garden forum certainly doesn't give the rest of the world (especially the world of commerce) the right to make a buck off of Hatta's (or anyone elses) work.

But yeah I will be interested in hearing what the site owners have to say about the use of this photo. And agree-- we should follow in Blanca's steps-- watermark your photos.

Ryan

Dear Hatta,

I'm very sorry to hear about what has happened to you. I know very well how it feels, it did happened to me with some of my writings several years ago, and such a disrespectfull behaviour still hurt even after that many years.

Unless I'm mistaking, such companies don't do this kind of work "in house", they contract to have it made for them, but that doesn't relieve them from any responsabilities whatsoever, they are always responsible for what they do and for what their employees do, be they regular ones or under contract. So go after them and demand due compensation from them for having stolen your work.

If I may add, I sugggest that you watermark your works from now on to avoid other similar cases. Your pictures are very good an so run the risk of being stolen again. I do it with mines on my web site since I learned that mariava had some of her pictures stolen and used on ebay. Yes, the watermark messes up the pictures a bit, not enough to keep anyone from seeing it well, but enough to discourage attempts of its removal. In that respect it has be be big enough to dicourage such removal attempts.

What can we do, watermarks is the price we have to pay to protect our work from being too easily stolen. It bothers the users, but it protects your works.

Best of luck to you in finding a proper solution to your problem!

Laurier

Thank you everybody for the feedback.

It sure is disheartening for something like this to happen esp when it is used in the world of commerce, to obtain financial gain.

I have done what need to be done based on the advise that you all have given.

Till then, happy gardening and take care!

Hatta

P/S : Kristi, I did manage to read your post, would you mind posting it again?

Hatta,
Thanks for acknowledging that a post was posted...but is gone! I more or less reposted under the post about my reply to you being removed.

I had suggested that first you contact them for payment, second best would be a photo credit, and if they aren't willing to do either request that it be removed from their site since it's being used without permission.

I really don't know why my post was removed, and that is a mystery that bothers me (just a little). Please keep us posted on your success with them.
Kristi

Just a quick update, both Willow Creeks and Easy To Grow Bulbs websites have removed the image, and in fact have removed the item altogether. At least they were quick about it!

Kathleen at Willow Creek said that their wholesale supplier was the source of the image, which apparently is common practice in the industry.

To me, that does make sense, as many times I receive catalogs in the mail from completely unrelated companies with identical product images. And, having worked in a wholesale business (non-gardening related) in the past, I can attest to the fact that we would often supply our customers images of the products for their use in advertising.

Hopefully Hatta can work out an amicable solution with Willow Creek. Although I think we've all learned a very valuable lesson about watermarking our photos.

Phoenix Ryan

Wow,

That is disappointing. Probably subbed out to someone to do the writing and photos, and they did it the lazy way. That would also explain the misspelling.

I see flower pictures on the internet that vary so much. You would think the grower would want to be sure their plant in flower is photographed. What if I buy the bulb and it doesn't look like Hatta's plant?

Hatta, I say push them. It would be no big deal for them to send you a plant order to make up for it. Copying entire websites has become so common. The only way to stop it is to ask to be paid.

ryan in denver - Since you sell your photos, aren't you covered by copyright protection? You, of all people can show damages.

Maybe the watermark should include 'fee for use' info.

G.

I know this has been covered a zillion times but I think it is worth stating one more time. Copyright originates at the time a digital image is saved to a hard drive (this would include the drive in the camera). You do not need to write anything on the picture to have it copyrighted......this is a fallacy that just keeps spreading for some reason.

Anyone that has any ability using photoshop or related program can remove a watermark by cloning, etc. I did a demo on a different site just to prove the point.....I removed half the watermark just for fun because people somehow thought they were actually protecting their images this way.....then I removed my image....all done with permission to make a point.

I'd nail them to the wall :o) Dan

Dear Dan,

Thank you so much for reminding all of us about your previous demonstration.

I respect your knowledge and opinion very much.

I apologize for continuing to purse this issue. However, many of us use Photo Bucket to store the photos that we want to post here on Garden Web, and Hatta's unjust treatment has caused me concern.

Would you please look over Photo Buckets Terms of Use and let us know if you think our photos are safe if we designate our albums as "private" instead of "public"?

If PhotoBucket users sign in to their accounts and look under Account Options, they will find an option to choose either their albums to be private or public.

Gratefully,

Blanca

Proprietary Rights in Content on Photobucket.

6.1 Photobucket does not claim any ownership rights in the text, files, images, photos, video, sounds, musical works, works of authorship, applications, or any other materials (collectively, "Content") that you post on or through the Photobucket Services.

By displaying or publishing ("posting") any Content on or through the Photobucket Services, you hereby grant to Photobucket and other users a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, worldwide, limited license to use, modify, delete from, add to, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and translate such Content, including without limitation distributing part or all of the Site in any media formats through any media channels, except Content marked "private" will not be distributed outside the Photobucket Services.

Photobucket and/or other Users may copy, print or display publicly available Content outside of the Photobucket Services, including without limitation, via the Site or third party websites or applications (for example, services allowing Users to order prints of Content or t-shirts and similar items containing Content).

After you remove your Content from the Photobucket Website we will cease distribution as soon as practicable, and at such time when distribution ceases, the license to such Content will terminate. If after we have distributed your Content outside the Photobucket Website you change the Content�s privacy setting to "private," we will cease any further distribution of such "private" Content outside the Photobucket Website as soon as practicable.

Blanca, I'm no man of law, but I think that you've hit on the right nail.

To me, this means that when you register as member of this sort of site and when you post anything on Flickr, Picassa, Photobucket, Facebook or any other similar sites, by default you give the right to anyone to use anything you've put there, and no one has to ask for your permission and no one owes you anything if they do use your material. You still retain your copyrights at all time, but that's about all you have left and you can't even use that since you've granted almost any rights to anyone to do whatever they want.

That's as plain as this to me.

Laurier

Looks like Picasa terms are different and leave rights with the originator. Here's a clip from their terms:

8. Content in the Services

8.1 You understand that all information (such as data files, written text, computer software, music, audio files or other sounds, photographs, videos or other images) which you may have access to as part of, or through your use of, the Services are the sole responsibility of the person from which such content originated. All such information is referred to below as the "Content".

8.2 You should be aware that Content presented to you as part of the Services, including but not limited to advertisements in the Services and sponsored Content within the Services may be protected by intellectual property rights which are owned by the sponsors or advertisers who provide that Content to Google (or by other persons or companies on their behalf). You may not modify, rent, lease, loan, sell, distribute or create derivative works based on this Content (either in whole or in part) unless you have been specifically told that you may do so by Google or by the owners of that Content, in a separate agreement.

Dear Laurier and Alana,

Many thanks for your valuable insights and information!

It is painfully clear that each of us needs to carefully consider the method we use to post our photographs here.

Sincerely,

Blanca

I sent an e-mail to Willow Creek, asking for further information,

************************************************************
Hi Kathleen,

I am Hatta, the rightful owner of the Hippeastrum Bogata image that your company, Willow Creek Gardens and EasytoGrow Bulbs use at their on-line retail websites. Please also extend this message to the responsible person at EasytoGrow Bulbs.com

Obviously, I feel upset because the image is used without my knowledge and permission for commercial purpose.

Since the usage of the image is unintentional on your part, could you please let me know the name of the supplier that your company purchase the bulbs from. I am pretty sure that the same image is used by the supplier's other customers as well.

Thank you.

Hatta

*********************************************************

And this is rather arrogant and snobbish response that I got from them

**********************************************************
Hello Hatta,

I just heard back from our buyer regarding the supplier who provided your photo for the Bogata. This is the information and reply he has provided:

Tell him Ive contacted the supplier and notified them immediately. They are a company out of the country and, for obvious reasons; we donÂt typically share our suppliers with anybody. The seller has responded and said he didnÂt know we were going to use it to sell from, he just forwarded it along so we would know what it looked like.

Tell him one key to not having your images stolen on-line is to not name them what they are when they upload them to anywhere. In other words, donÂt name the image file "Amaryllis Bogata" otherwise Google will reveal to the world where the image is when people do a google search on it. Another method is to imbed a watermark in your image so that no one who intends to steal will do so, and no one will mistakenly believe they are able to use it.

I hope this helps! Have a beautiful day!

________________________
Kathleen McCarthy
Willow Creek Gardens, Inc
www.WillowCreekGardens.com
Email: customerservice@willowcreekgardens.com
************************************************************

It is dsspointing receiving this kind of response :-(

Hatta

The professional that had some photos (her trade mark flamingo) stolen had them on Flickr. At least that sounds familiar.

I quit naming my photos for the very reason stated. Now a Nymph photo might just be N 9-1-09.

Hatta, I don't see anything wrong with Kathleen's response. Remember, it's hard to read tone into emails and there are cultural differences (regarding out of country supplier's response). They have removed the photo and that's what you wanted.

Again, I think that we should come up with a good letter that goes to all Hippeastrum bulb growers...and tell them that we are every vigilant for this sort of misuse of our photos and that it won't be tolerated. We have the backing of well over #### Amaryllis hobbiest who will readily boycott anyone selling bulbs promoted by the use of stolen photographs, etc....

Just a thought!
Kristi

funny that she told you not to name the picture "Amaryllis Bogata" instead of "Hippeastrum Bogota"

Hatta- I am so sorry this happened to you. I'm not very excited about this response either as there wasn't even an apology. It goes on to make it out to be your fault for not protecting your image supposedly. This is not cute. If this photo was on their website, they are responsible period. And to send a response without so much as an apology...quite frankly I'm surprised. I would absolutely follow the steps to file a formal complaint if it were me.

-Frank

This was the very same reason given by the Ebay seller (used my Santa Fe pics without permission)in UK told me. That my pic was supplied to him/her by her bulb supplier and she/he did not know that it was owned by another person.

I wonder who this Hippie bulb supplier is. I don't think the commercial growers would do this. As they have more than enough Hippies in bloom to take pics of. It could "possibly" be sombody acting as a middle man between the commercial growers and retailers who does not even grow a single Hippie.

Now the USA Ebay seller who "helped herself" with my pics is a totally different story. She got my pics after using Google so that is true to not name your pics on your posts to avoid this googled images.

The one in Taiwan...Sighhhhhh. I got tired and just gave up! I hope they got rich out of it!!!

Posting group pics can also avoid this situations.

{{gwi:424489}}

I stopped taking pictures all together because of all the issues people have had. As a matter of fact, I have not taken pictures of my hippeastrums for almost a year. I'm so sorry this is happening to so many people....*smh* :(

I know this discussion has been going on for some time now, and frankly, I am a little confused. I can see how those among us who sell photos would be wronged by someone taking this pictures and using it for commercial purposes, and obviously that is not only illegal, it is morally wrong and it is easy to see why one would be not only wronged, but could easily choose to be offended. Fair enough.
However, for those of us who like to take and share our pictures with friends, at least for me, I take it as a great compliment when someone uses one of my pictures, even commercially. I have no intent to sell my pictures or make money off of them, so the more they are used by others, the more pleased I am. Someone please tell me where my thinking has gone wrong here. I know it is the American thing to be outraged now, the most popular word in journalism, but why would I or anyone make that choice when someone appreciates your photographic and horticultural abilities. I am a lost here.

Let me pull out my soap box here...

I believe it comes down to the individual. I personally DO sell my photography but even if I didn't, my intellectual property is not for the use of others to make money-- there is no waiver in my thoughts on this. However, if the next person doe snot care then so be it. But it doesn't negate the fact that photo was used without permission, and therein lies the issue. It is not just morally wrong to use photos from a photographer who sells his photos-- it is morally wrong to use anyone's work without due credit. I can think of no institution where this is acceptable. This is why we give credit-- ie in written papers and journals, etc. This is how it is. And though Hatta's photo may never make someone millions of dollars, what if it did? Should he not benefit? This is all hypothetical of course but these morals are what we should stick to to make sure, no matter how big or small the issue is, no one is exploited.

Outraged is a good description of the US right now. I guess loads are people of morally incensed by the mere mentioning of people like Berny Madoff (ironic name, don't you think?). But I for one find the public in general at fault for having lived SO far outside of our means for so long.

Long live moderation in all things, personal responsibility and the general sense of what is right.

*jumps off soap box*

I for one think the situation was handle well by the bulb people. And I DON'T think Hatta should stop posting his awesome shots.

Thanks Hatta!!!!

Ryan

In the old, very old days, it was indeed considered a compliment when for instance Mozart would use a theme by Bach a make a new work out of it. But it would also mention that the original theme was by Bach. The means of communication were few in these days and very few things would circulate.

But these times are long gone, things started to move around much more than before and much faster. Ideas peoples had were being stolen from them, while they could have made money out of some of their ideas, other peoples started to make a lot of money out of stolen ideas and works.

The pressure was on the governments to better protect these peoples and so were born the copyright laws. These laws are present in almost every country of the world and they make it ILLEGAL to use someone else's ideas and works of all kind such as movies, pictures, music or any other work of the mind without the permission of the owner. So, it is not only frustrating but ILLEGAL to use someone else's picture without his permission, wether the permission comes with a compensation or not.

The problem worsened with the Internet since most peoples think that if it is on the Net, anyone can use it without permission and without compensation, but that is not always the case, most works available on the Net are not free and they can't be used without permission.

I did say "most" on purpose, because there is a catch on the Net and most peoples very easily fall into it including "yours truly". The catch is the following one: to register on sites such as Photobucket, Picassa, Flickr, MySpace, and the worst of all Facebook, you MUST agree to the terms of use. The problem is WE DON'T READ THE TERMS OF USE and the small prints, we just click OK, we accept THEIR conditions.

The terms of use mostly state that if you put a work of the mind on this site such as a picture, a movie clip, a song, a sound clip, etc., you agree that ANYONE can use it WITHOUT your permission, they can do whatever they want to with it (even sell it) and they DON'T OWE YOU a penny, not even excuses if you ask for it. In some cases, these item even become the property of the owner of the site, so you loose all your rights over what was yours.

Another problem with this, is that someone can claim rights over something that belong or belonged to you and make money out of it. If you realize that something like that is happening, it is YOUR responsability to PROVE within the reasonable doubt that it belongs to you and not to someone else, a very very hard task if there was ever one to accomplish!!!

So, stealing a pix from someone and using it without is permission is ILLEGAL anywhere in the world, except in the case of several web sites where it is perfectly LEGAL when you sign in as member of these sites.

I learned a few lessons myself from this so very sad and and so rightly frustrating experience our good friend Hatta has been through:

- ALWAYS read the terms of use before you sign in as member of something on the web
- I had several pix on Picassa, not very meaningful ones, but MY pictures nevertheless. I removed them all since I don't want them to pop up everywhere on the Net without due credit given, with or without $ compen$ation $. So don't be surprised if you land on an old thread and don't see the pix anymore, I removed them on purpose.
- From now on, if anyone wants to see my pix, and I do have several hundreds of them and more coming up, they are all on my site, they are better protected there since they all wear a "picture condom" as I call them. Not a flawless guaranty, but better than nothing at all. So, no more pix on GW from me, they are all on my site.