Specifically the post highlighted the lack of a “take down, stay down” system, such as the one Myspace, Photobucket’s parent company, uses and the ability for any user to print any image they see on the site. These two factors were also the subject of a petition against Photobucket, which now has some 6,700 signatures.

Photobucket, for their part, did not respond favorably to this and I was unfortunately forced to drop the matter for a while as other projects came up.

However, after a hiatus on the topic, I’m returning to it, this time with a 9-minute video illustrating one of the issues, namely the problems surrounding the printing system, but this time calling for users of Photobucket (as well as potentially infringed copyright holders) to pay attention to these issues.

The video, entitled “Commercial Printing with Photobucket” is embedded below and details how easy it is to turn any image on the site into a t-shirt, including personal ones, and how it compares to a similar service, namely Flickr.

PhotoBucket: Your Images for Sale from Jonathan Bailey on Vimeo.

Embed Code:

<object width="400" height="302"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="movie" value="http://www.vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1400807&server=www.vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0&color=&fullscreen=1" /><embed src="http://www.vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1400807&server=www.vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0&color=&fullscreen=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="400" height="302"></embed></object><br /><a href="http://www.vimeo.com/1400807?pg=embed&sec=1400807">PhotoBucket: Your Images for Sale</a> from <a href="http://www.vimeo.com/user628766?pg=embed&sec=1400807">Jonathan Bailey</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com?pg=embed&sec=1400807">Vimeo</a>.

You can find the video on these following video sharing sites:

YouTube
Vimeo (above)
Revver
Blip.tv

Note: If you put it on another video sharing site, let me know so I can include it in the list.

Also, the video is licensed under a Creative Commons BY-SA license meaning that you are free to copy and share the video as well as create derivative works so long as the new work is licensed under the same terms.

If you wish to express your displeasure to Photobucket about this matter, you can reach them via their contact form. Also, please consider contacting their partner in this process, Qoop, to let them know you disapprove of Photobucket’s policies. You can do so via their contact form and selecting “Photobucket” as the partner involved (You first have to solve the CAPTCHA to go to the form).

On that note, if you wish to upload the video to your account, edit it or otherwise have a copy of it, you can download the original .mov file by visiting drop.io here (click the “save” link above the video):

Drop.io Download

If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to let me know.

I look forward to your feedback on this video.

At issue specifically are two elements of PhotoBucket’s services. First, their image printing service, which is powered by Qoop, and second, their takedown system, which often leaves the work available on other parts of the site.

Some of the artists have banded together by creating a petition directed at PhotoBucket, which I helped author, asking them to change some of their policies to help better protect artists and photographers whose works are being posted, and even sold, on the service.

What makes this case unique is that the artists have not just specific concerns, but also specific solutions to the problem and have requested that PhotoBucket take a series of steps to help ensure that their rights are protected.

Buying Prints

The first complaint deals with PhotoBucket’s relationship with print-on-demand service Qoop.

Qoop works with other image sharing sites, including Flickr and Webshots, but at those sites the relationship is a bit different. Elsewhere, users can only request prints of their own photographs. however, with PhotoBucket, strangers can access users accounts, including those not logged in to the site, and request prints. All that they need is the “Share” URL, which is available in most search results.

This feature of PhotoBucket is not mentioned clearly in any of the marketing materials. Nowhere on the front page of the site or the registration page does PhotoBucket mention that, by default, prints of your work will be available to anyone finds your account.

Furthermore, PhotoBucket does not mention in any clear location that the way to prevent this from happening is to set your account to private or not display the “Share” URL under your images. This creates a very worrisome situation where not only are artists likely having their works printed after being uploaded without permission, but also photos being uploaded in the intended manner can be printed by complete strangers.

Few, I doubt, would be comfortable with a stranger printing a calendar based upon their family photos and this raises many unsettling possibilities.

Artists, however, also have to contend with Qoop’s printing service. Qoop does not make any attempt to filter out infringing material from their service, other than providing a standard terms of service and presenting warnings to the user. One artist, Sandi Baker of Wolf Song Studio tested this by logging into visiting a strangers account (she did not log into PB in any regard), one who had uploaded some of her images without permission, and printed several stickers of her own work, seen right.

All of this without her explicit permission or the permission of the person who created the account.

However, if an effective take down regime were in place at PhotoBucket, this problem might be significantly lessened. Unfortunately, as many artists have discovered, the take down system at PhotoBucket does little to actually stop distribution of their work.

Take Down Problems

Though all of the artists who have filed takedown notices with PhotoBucket agree that the staff is friendly and efficient, the problem is that takedowns rarely remove the work from the site.

Several artists have reported that their images are reuploaded, often within minutes. This often takes place through a series of spam-like accounts owned by usernames that contain a large amount of numbers and don’t seem likely to have been created by a human being.

However, filing a takedown of an image does not result in removal of all copies of the work, just the specific one mentioned. Given that there are over four billion images on PhotoBucket and the difficulties in search for images on the Web, especially if the title has been changed, it is unlikely that an artist can find all or even most copies of their image.

Many artists feel that, between the other copies of the work and the reuploading of removed images, that filing takedown notices with PhotoBucket is almost completely. It is impossible to remove an image, especially one that is popular with PhotoBucket’s users, from the service.

However, the answer to this problem might actually rest with PhotoBucket’s parent company Myspace as they have already cracked this problem, at least as it applies to video.

Solutions

According to the artists, the issue of photo printing can be greatly mitigated by limiting access to the service. The default setting for the printing feature should be set to “off”. This can be achieved initially by ensuring that all PhotoBucket accounts are initially set to private and are only turned to public with the express understanding that it enables printing.

A more permanent solution, however, would be to turn off the printing service itself, unless specifically requested, and limiting it to the user’s own account. Exceptions might be available in cases where well-known artists use PhotoBucket, such as with director accounts on YouTube, but those accounts would carry special rules and require more effort to create.

Though such a system would still enable users to grab an image they wanted to print, upload it to their own account and print the image, limiting the access to the feature greatly reduces the number of people who can produce prints and ensures that the person who requested the image is also the original infringer. This eliminates much of the “innocent infringer” argument and prevents people from accidentally making works available for commercial printing.

Regarding the takedown system, PhotoBucket’s parent company Myspace introduced a “Take Down Stay Down” system for their video offerings in May of last year.

The system works by taking a fingerprint of any video that a takdown is requested for and comparing it against all future uploads. If the video matches, the upload is blocked preventing the work from reappearing on the site.

Theoretically, such a system could easily be applied to images. Once a takedown of an image is requested and a counter-notice seems unlikely, the image could be fingerprinted, compared against other images on the service and against other uploads. If other copies are detected, they are either removed or blocked, meaning that the artist need only submit one DMCA notice to secure the removal of all of their images.

This would likely service PhotoBucket as well as the artists as, most likely, the majority of PhotoBucket’s DMCA complaints stem from a small group of artists dealing with a relatively finite number of pictures.

The technology for such a system already exists and can even detect if the image has been reduced, cropped or otherwise trivially edited. It is at least technically possible for Myspace and PhotoBucket alike to implement such a system.

Conclusions

There is little doubt among the artists that PhotoBucket is a good service and was built with the best of intentions. However, the service is having some unintended consequences and needs to be adjusted to make sure that rampant copyright infringement does not harm the reputation of the service with its target audience, artists and photographers.

There is no desire to “kill” PhotoBucket or to hinder the usefulness of the service for its millions of legitimate users. However, there is a growing expression of concern regarding the service.

As of this writing, the petition is closing in on fifty signatures despite being up less than 24 hours (Update: 10 PM CT Currently at 575 signatures). All of the signatories of the petition are visual artists, many of whom have had their works abused by PhotoBucket members. The current list includes many well-known artists, especially in the airbrush art communities.

Hopefully Photobucket will see these issues and make the needed changes before it is too late. Otherwise, it is only a matter of time before the artists get more hostile towards the service and both the reputation of PhotoBucket and of its legitimate members starts to suffer.

But most importantly, the artists are trying to avoid a situation where others are tempted to try the Viacom route and simply go after PhotoBucket in court. That is not in anyone’s best interest.

With that in mind though, Myspace does not tolerate these types of issues with their video offerings and should not tolerate them with their image offerings either. Art and photography, though not always backed with the most powerful lawyers, are no less creative and require no less effort than video. They are also no less protected.

Still images deserve the same protections as videos. Let us hope that Myspace and PhotoBucket see it the same way.

Rebekka Guðleifsdóttir is heralded as one of the top photographers on the photo-sharing site Flickr. Guðleifsdóttir, a native of Iceland, is well known for her self-portraits as well as her surreal landscapes.

However, she recently discovered that a photo printing site had not only posted several of her works under a false name (Yahoo! Cache Version), but was selling prints of those photos in their store. A search through their Ebay store turned up approximately £2,500 (about $5,000) in sold prints, all with her work.

Seeking repayment, Guðleifsdóttir turned to a local attorney who sent the company a stern letter. The company removed the works from their site and then fell quiet. No future correspondence was returned and Guðleifsdóttir, a single mother and a college student, was left footing the bill for the lawyer.

Understandably upset at this outcome, Guðleifsdóttir vented her frustration in her Flickr account.

The story struck a chord with the Flickr community. It quickly reached the front page of Digg (earning over 4000 Diggs) and the entry generated well over 400 comments.

However, the original entry was to be short lived. Only hours after it hit the front page of Digg, Yahoo!, who owns Flickr, removed the post. According to Guðleifsdóttir, Yahoo! cited alleged terms of service violations.

That, in turn, has kicked off another storm of controversy with many criticizing Yahoo!’s move as censorship.

But in addition to being an interesting case of plagiarism gone awry, the story also serves to illustrate many of the challenges that arise when trying to protect your works on the Web.

The Other Side of The Story

The photo printing site at the center of the controversy, Only-Dreemin UK, says that the story actually begins a good while before Guðleifsdóttir discovered her works were stolen.

In Only-Dreemin’s version of the story, they were approached about six months ago by an company known as “Wild Aspects and Panoramics LTD” that offered to sell them republishing rights on high-resolution landscaping images. After some negotiations and about £3000.00 (just under $6,000) paid to the company, the deal was done and Only-Dreemin started production.

Two weeks ago the company received a letter from the Icelandic law firm hired by Guðleifsdóttir. Only-Dreemin looked into the matter, found that the works were indeed hers, removed them from their site and then destroyed all prints that they had.

They realized that they had been scammed. Only-Dreemin attempted to contact the company that had sold them the works, but all of the contact information form them was no longer valid.

According to Only-Dreemin, they contacted their lawyer, who advised them to comply with the requests from Guðleifsdóttir’s law firm, which they did, and then keep quiet, which they also did.

It appears that Guðleifsdóttir mistook Only-Dreemin’s silence, which was the product of legal advice they obtained, as another act of a “dishonest company”. That, in turn, prompted her to post her original article on Flickr.

If Only-Dreemin’s account is to be believed, it seems that they were victims too and that a lack of communication, as much as copyright infringement, is to blame for the controversy.

The only problem with Only-Dreemin’s account is that, according to Guðleifsdóttir, she and her attorney tried several times to get Only-Dreemin to provide some proof of this seller. However, even after repeated attempts at contact, Only-Dreemin failed to produce any evidence that they even exist, much less sold them the works.

While this might have been part of their lawyer’s strategy to remain silent, it would seem simple enough to produce a a canceled check, a reciept or some other kind of proof that such a transaction took place.

As of yet though, none has been provided.

Flickr Makes a Flub

Though the plagiarism and copyright issues were enough to get many people upset, Yahoo!, if by accident, threw gasoline on the fire when they deleted the original blog post.

In their contact with Guðleifsdóttir, they explained the deletion with the following statement:

“Flickr is not a venue for to you harass, abuse, impersonate, or intimidate others. If we receive a valid complaint about your conduct, we will send you a warning or
terminate your account.”

Though it is unclear what harassment, abuse, impersonation or intimidation the post was allegedly guilty of, Only-Dreemin did report receiving several death threats over the matter. It is likely that, even though the post itself was completely non-violent, that the removal stemmed from those actions.

However, Yahoo! did admit that they made a mistake with the takedown and restored Guðleifsdóttir’s blog, however, as of this writing, the original post has not been restored and still shows a “deleted” page.

But despite the apology and the admission of the mistake, it appears that the “Flickr Censorship” controversy is not going to die down any time soon. It too reached the front page of Digg and seems to have taken on a life of its own.

Lessons to be Gleaned

When it comes to dealing with plagiarism and content theft issues on the Web, this long and winding tale has several interesting points to keep in mind.

1. Going Public is Very Risky: I’ve spoken many times before why going public with a plagiarism fight is risky. In addition to legal issues such as libel and harassment, one also has to consider the energy that will be expended in going that route and the effect it can have on your reputation. Add to all of that potential consequences from one’s host if they consider the public statement to be a violation of their terms of use. Note: I am not saying that Guðleifsdóttir made the wrong decision, there are times it is appropriate, just that we have to consider this potential consequence as well. I really do not know how I would have handled this if I had been in her position.
2. Communication is Key: Whether you are the one being plagiarized or the one being accused of it, communication is critical. It is possible that much of this public controversy could have been resolved if Only-Dreemin had simply attempted to work things out in good faith rather than trying to shut Guðleifsdóttir away. It is important to listen to your attorney, but it is also important to realize that they are not PR experts and are, usually, only thinking of legal consequences.
3. Terms of Use Are Subjective: Though the DMCA provides rigid guidance for hosts when dealing with copyright infringement, the guidance for matters of harassment and other TOS violations are generally less clear. Those guidelines will vary wildly from one site to the next and even from one abuse agent to the next at the same company. Sadly, there is often no telling what one person will deem harassment or abuse.
4. Be Careful From Where You Buy: Whenever buying content, especially to sell, be extremely careful where you purchase it from. Check out the seller thoroughly, make sure they have a good track record and have no complaints against them. A little research can, sometimes, save a lot of headache.
5. Beware Your Own Power: Remember that on the Web anything can take off and cause a major storm. Even if you don’t think you have a lot of clout, something on your blog or site can quickly attract tens of thousands of readers. That is important to keep in mind when venting about frustrations with content theft.

All in all, this whole affair makes for a great case study in how plagiarism-related matters are handled on the Web and can offer many lessons to improve the handling out right avoid such matters in the future.

Hopefully those lessons will be taken to heart by everyone following it.

Conclusions

The end result of all of this is a lot of devestation. Only-Dreemin has taken their store completely off the Web. Flickr’s reputation has taken a servere hit, their second reputation blow in recent memory and, despite her preexisting fame, Guðleifsdóttir will always likely be associated, on some level, with this controversy and will be known better known, in some circles, for being the victim of plagiarism than for being a talented photographer.

The whole ordeal has created a barren wasteland of reputations in its wake and, most likely, even the victim won’t survive completely unscathed. It is unfortunate given the situation, but true.

However, it is clear that mistakes were made, especially on Only-Dreemin and Flickr’s side. But only time and further information will tell what it was really behind those bad decisions.

Because, while not saying anything will keep you out of court, but it may not keep you in business. Likewise, removing a post that is generating some harassing and threatening email may keep you from being sued, but it won’t protect you when your users cry censorship.

This exact kind of storm is exactly what companies try to avoid yet, sometimes, they accidentally walk right into them or, worse yet, create one from the ground up.

Update 4:30 PM: I heard back from Guðleifsdóttir a few moments ago. She explained to me that Only-Dreemin has been pushed on several occasions to provide proof of the buyer’s existance. So far they have not done so. Since this information changes the entire article the entire work has been updated throughout with changes reflecting this new information. I will post further updates as they come in.