I found on a german pc-magazin website a lot of images from Rero members.
There are vue images from JCD,Rutra, myself etc.
Nobody asked me for my image.And there is no link to Renderosity or so.
Has anybody asked you for your images?
 Here are the links to the site:
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,638316/News/Raytracing_Sehen_so_die_Spiele_der_Zukunft_aus_Update_Neue_Sci-Fi-Bilder/

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/?menu=browser&article_id=638316

Please tell me what you think about that.
Regards
Christian (kanzler)

Clear case of copyright infringement.They did mention the renderosity namesof ther creators but if they think that gets them off the hook they are badly mistaken. Copyright holders don't just have the right to be rcognized by name as the creators of their works, they also have the sole right to decide about further use, copying and distribution of those images. All of this has been violated here.

You could demand them to take this down and  even demand damages in the form of compulsory license fees. Actually that would be a fun case. I am a self-employed lawyer working in IT law and Intellectual property law in this jurisdiction. I am always happy to pursue such cases. If you wanna give them some fire,drop me a PM. ;)

I found much more images  on the Website.

www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,638772/News/Raytracing_Sehen_so_die_Spiele_der_Zukunft_aus_Teil_2_-_10_neue_Bilder/&menu=browser&image_id=802725&article_id=638772&page=1

They certainly didn't contact me about using any of my stuff, so it appears like they've taken the liberty of lifting these materials and feel that they've given proper credit. I think most people will say they're wrong...

Assuming there is a commercial value to the images used there without permission - if there was none, they hadn't used them on their commercial website in the first place - it is obviously not enough to "give credit" by printing an artist name below the published image,not even under German copyright law which is somewhat more "artistic-minded" than commercially oriented.

They didn't ask my permission either. And I plan on doing something about it.

Kanzler, many thanks for the warning.

No, they did not ask me for that image. But I did receive another request recently, from www.scifiweekly.com, for that very same image, which I authorized (the image will be featured on the week of April 21st). Does anyone know if these sites are related in any way?

@ Rutra
No.The German website is  from a german Pc Hardware Magazin.
I think it is very bold to publicate our images without our agreement.

Well, I've got to give them one for good taste,they picked great work!

hehe the advantage of being not so great = less of this kind of stuff ;)

hard to believe and proper magazine would allow such stuff

Thanks for the warning, Kanzler. I gave them no pernission, whatsoever! In fact, I have just e-mailed someone there who seems to be in charge (top of the list, anyway) and asked for the immediate removal of all my images. However, so far I have only received a stock ebot in German.

I have recently visually watermarked all my images on this site, but too late for these. I don't intent to let it rest though. All these images of mine have a digitally embedded ID in them registered to me Peter Hague Concept • Design • Art Direction, which has been by business name for twenty years. I have just 'lifted' an image of mine back of their site and tested it - it works!

They give the name of the artists and mention Renderosity, but it has to be made clear to the world that it won't cover usage like this!

I think this has to be jumped on! Initially, it is an opportunity for Renderosity to throw it's weight around and contact them on our behalf, since they are mentioned as the source.

I would suggest to anyone who considers future action, be it legal or non-legal, to do a screenshot of  the violation of their copyright, just for evidence purposes. The courts in Germany tend to value every image copyright infringment case at 25,000 Euros. That doesn't mean 25,000 in damages for you but some legal feesof 600 to 1000 Euros - per image if they get a takedown notice from a German lawyer.

In short - there is a leverage - and it would really hurt  :D

I have already took screen shots of all my images on their site... all 10 that I know of.

when asked what i aspire to with my artwork - my answer is always a variation of the same:

I want people to want to steal my images/infringe my copywrite... whatever.

but - thats me =D  those images were danged good, folks - congrats on having them used!  (yes, yes, i know i know - the copyrites MUST be adhered to - but at least they had great taste, right?)

Great point mellkla, but they are making their site look great and making money from it based on our hard work and without our permission.... Renderosity has our permission to look great. lol

I suggested to Renderosity that they should complain, since they are the source of the infrigement... feeling that it would be good to stop the rot in future. I received a very prompt response , which I will print here:

"While we would like to be able to stop image theft, our

hands are a bit tied. The only thing we can do is to get

thieves off of Renderosity. We cannot do anything about the

actual copyrights of others work, that is on another site.

What you will need to do, as the copyright holder, is send a

cease and desist letter to the site that is hosting your

images illegally, and demand your images be removed.

If they do not do this, then you may need to think of

retaining a lawyer, and taking it to copyright court. Most

***times, the C&D is enough".

***Mmmm... did I mention the ebot in German?

They are filling their commercial website with our stuff!
This is ...........!!!!!

I think I am going to add my complaint to yours guys.... they did not steal a single image from My gallery ! :)

More seriously.... Germany has a strick approach to copyright protection. They should know better. Good luck tracking them down.

At the bottom of the page, there is a "Copyright © 2008 by Computec Media AG" and the link goes to http://www.computec.de/. There is a link there at the bottom of the page for email.

I just found out about this from Rutra via site mail(thanks Artur!).First of all,thanks Kanzler for letting us know about this,I for one,did not authorize the use of my images,nor was I asked to do so!I checked out the site,and while I am pissed,I must say I'm honoured to have been included among such company.I checked out the link Red Dog suggested,but with it all in German I honestly don't know where to file my request to remove my images...if anyone can help I would  appreciate it.
Secondly,while I can understand Renderosity's stand on this,I'm a little disappointed in the response...no wait,I'm more than a little disappointed!I think that at the very least a cease and desist request from this site to theirs on all of our behalf would be in order,and I don't think it's too much to ask!We have a symbiotic relationship here...we look good thanks to Renderosity,and our art helps make the site what it is...which is what drew me to become a member here.I know that this sort of thing is happening,and has the potential to happen,all the time,and I know in reality there's little to be done to stop it...but I for one would like to know my best interests were in the minds of those whose site I am a member of.So I leave it at that,and maybe if enough of those whose works were stolen voice a similar opinion a request would be sent.Should a joint venture to pursue this any further come about,my name can be added to the list!

I wrote to the following email addresses:
tb@pcgameshardware.de - Cheif Editor
redaktion@pcgameshardware.de - Listed as contact
computec@csj.de - Parent publishing company.

If you use Bable fish ( http://babelfish.altavista.com/ ), you can put in a link and select translate from German to English and get the gist of the page and read the links in broken english.

I have written too. But I still think Renderosity should take a firm stance on this, since they have been sighted as the source of the images. This action might help to stop this in the future. You wouldn't expect a physical gallery to let people walk off with the stuff without saying anything about it and then expect the artist to go and get it back!

I agree with e-brink...I think it's about time for Renderosity to step up and show some support on this to show that they,like us,won't stand for this type of theft!

Sorry to hear of this....BUT...it has happened many many times here before...and it will again!!!
Sadly, Renderosity will do nothing about it.  They  have stated it is up to the artist to enforce copyright violations...which is true...BUT, there are things that Renderosity can do to help stop image theft.
I have offered those suggestions over the past year....none have been implemented.

@e-brink....I too have started to watermark all my images...and yes, I too have had people complaining.....If they don't like it that's too bad!  Once they have had their own images stolen....I am sure they will change their mind.

Good luck to all in getting your images removed from the site in question...and remember, you are only seeing the tip of the iceberg....there are possibly many of your images that may get printed and sold in street markets...those, you will never find....

gradient: Yes! Hence the visible watermark! Though someone used it as an excuse to down-rate my latest image tonight. I think they gave it a 1. You just can't win! Having said that, Renderosity sorted it out and the person in question is under review.... that's something they can do here!

I'm truly surprised at Renderosity's response here as a huge part of this site is the great artwork featured here and if another commercial entity is freely taking from Renderosity galleries, you would think that they would at least have an interest in sending them a cease and desist notice, if only in the interest of their own sites integrity.

I've contacted the publication as well, but if there is any interest in approaching them as a group, I'd certainly be up for it. The funny thing here is that if they'd have just asked and maybe offered a link back or something, I probably would have been fine with the work being posted there - it's just not cool that they took it upon themselves to take what they wanted.

I agree with you JCD...in fact in my request I sent to the site I stated as much,and that their actions obviously would prevent me from ever doing so.I think it's time we all took this up with Renderosity, especially in light of the info Gradient shared.If some of his suggestions had been implemented we may not be in this position now.

One thing I want to add - beside the fact that they have NOT stolen any of my images.

We have enough Germans here - me included - that can help when it comes to write or understand letters that go for and backwards. Simply ask and I/we will help in doing translations etc on this issue.

The sites with the images are down!
Is seems  they have reacted to our mails!
Thank you all.

Well, in my email, I also cc'ed news@theregister.co.uk about the issue, and that site loves to rub Milennium copyright violations in the face of European sites :)

I just got this email from the editor in cheif of PCGH website:

Quote:
*Hi Gregory,

Thanks for your mail. If you could do me a favor, pls post this statement in the mentioned thread so that all renderosity members can see my words.

Plase apologize for any inconveniences related to our article. We already depublished all articles with pictures from Renderosity and will investigate further so that no picture is visible on our website. We make sure that no pics from Renderosity will appear on our site in the future.

It was not our purpose to steal images from you although you might think that. The contrary was the case. We wanted to show the creativity and marksmanship of raytraced pictures as Intel puts this technique in the foreground.

If you have any questions left, feel free to contact me directly. Pls apologize again.

Kind regards,
Thilo Bayer
Publishing Director PCGH.de*

Great result. Unfortunately though, I now think I can never post without a 'visible' watermark as well as the digital one, which is a terrible thing. I have always been one for very minimalist signatures and no interference with the image - just a small muted 12pt name bottom right. That's changed this week, but I will still have to completely rethink my posting now and many here might want to do the same. Most of all though, I think people commenting on work will have to be made aware of this kind of problem so they don't leave ridiculous comments and poor ratings - as though the watermark is there just to spoil their enjoyment of the image. They have to realise the watermark is a sad compromise, not aimed at them and not an excuse to down-rate.

Hey guys I just found that site this morning, I usually google my screen name every now and again to see who is stealing what this week, funny thing is I ran across this right before it was pulled LOL.  As for the watermark thing I think we all should use a specific mark on any version of an image posted here in the galleries even the thumbs as they can be stolen and enlarged  with new technology.  If they would have contacted me I would have had no problem giving permission at all as it was not an act of actually selling art but rather using the art as media filler.

Determine market value, for your work, send them a bill for use of your art work.  If they fail to pay, send it to court for collection.  Do you have any idea how much a Debit Collector will hound the Hell out of them to get their commission.

Well, I'd post more, but folk tend to get upset on such issues, I will say that I think our entire outlook on copyright is silly in a digital age in the 21st century.

Oh and have a look at the US Orphaned Works Act...
*plays the music from "JAWS" * ;)

 silverblade33: You make a very good point! That's why I'm keen to get visible watermarking accepted as a necessary norm and not to attract ridiculous comments and bad ratings.

Dont get me wrong, I perfectly understand artists who watermark their images but, personally, I just hate seeing images with visible watermarking. Imagine "Creation of Adam" with a watermark, imagine Escher or Dali images with watermarks. For me, visible watermarks completely ruin my enjoyment of watching a beautiful image. Absolutely, completely, totally.
I know this is an emotional judgement, not a rational one, but watching art is a deeply emotional experience, not a rational one.

I do not put watermarks in my images. I even try to make my signature as small as possible. I prefer to take the risk that someone steals my images. This has happened at least twice, that I know about. I dont like it but I prefer this to the alternative of putting visible watermarks.

Anyway, a visible watermark doesnt really prevent acts like the one being discussed in this thread. If someone wants to post an image they dont own in their site, it means that these people are not too concerned about copyright violation and so, why would a watermark stop them from doing it? I think the main issue is about proving ownership of an image and for that it's not necessary visible watermarking, an invisible embedded digital ID serves this purpose a lot better and doesnt "steal" the enjoyment of watching a beautiful image.

Thanks for your point Rutra. I'm looking for opinions at the moment. I too only used a very minimal 12pt signature in the bottom right of the picture until last week. But all my images have always been invisibly watermarked, which I though was enough (but not against printing). I have had a few disturbing incidents lately, so I am trying this and that and see what happens. I certainly feel more comfortable at the moment, although the visible watermark does look better on some pictures than others. It's a compromise! Although I did take it off my latest one since I have now started to use the Digimarc logo on my gallery pages.

I suppose another good protection is the fact that posting them here, or elsewhere, does to time and date stamp them.

@Rutra;

*"I prefer to take the risk that someone steals my images"

*You aren't taking any risk....you are inviting folks to take your images....in fact, it was just done...you have merely helped the thief.  Do you leave your doors and windows open too?

"Anyway, a visible watermark doesnt really prevent acts like the one being discussed in this thread. If someone wants to post an image they dont own in their site, it means that these people are not too concerned about copyright violation and so, why would a watermark stop them from doing it? "

Nothing will totally PREVENT these acts...but a watermark will MINIMIZE such acts.  It will also stop people from RESELLING that digital image or making a print from it!  These thieves are far too lazy to go to the trouble of trying to defeat that watermark....it's much easier to go steal one that doesn't have a w/m!!!!  Sure, they could post that watermarked image on their website...but at least you will get some advertising, by the time you catch them.

" I think the main issue is about proving ownership of an image and for that it's not necessary visible watermarking, an invisible embedded digital ID serves this purpose a lot better and doesnt "steal" the enjoyment of watching a beautiful image."

Agreed!...but I will add....it is always better to try and prevent the theft in the first place. Having to go after a thief, then go to the trouble of proving ownership is being REACTIVE, not PROACTIVE.

@e-brink;
One of the concepts that I had put forward to Renderosity on several occasions is providing the option (upon upload) to have a standardized Rendo watermark applied to the image...if the artist wishes.  This is similar to what almost EVERY stock photo agency uses. 
This was rejected by Rendo as "being too difficult" to implement.

Also, the digimarc system helps...but folks can still print...and sell your images.

In closing....there are things that both artists and websites CAN do to minimize image theft...nothing is perfect, but everyone needs to do their part.

Excellent points gradient. I can only repeat my comment above: "That's why I'm keen to get visible watermarking accepted as a necessary norm and not to attract ridiculous comments and bad ratings".

The way to do this is to publicize what just happened and educate people that the world of the internet is different - and the modern world is full of scavengers without conscience. I can imagine thousands of desperate people turning up for interviews around the world with a folder full of Renderosity posted pictures they didn't do. Back street printer turning out our work on postcards and selling them for more than we'll ever make. Students embellishing their work with ours and getting top grades, when they really aren't any good at all, and meanwhile the talented among them get sidelined... commercial websites using our work to look good.... that rings a bell! That just happened.

Whatever they say to apologize, there is no excuse. They should just have asked us for use and some here would have allowed it. They just couldn't be bothered. Too hard work, to much pressure, too much to do... multiply that by the world.

It is all about to be a mute subject.  The Gov is about to pass a new Copyright Law that basically says, you are at your own risk unless you Register each and every image with a New Internet Registry Service like Digimac.  Big brother wants those fees.

Quote - "You aren't taking any risk....you are inviting folks to take your images....in fact, it was just done...you have merely helped the thief.  Do you leave your doors and windows open too?"

No, I do not leave them open. But if I would have to live in a place where I would have to put iron bars in the doors and windows, I would certainly move to another neighbourhood. Like I said, this is an emotional thing. I absolutely do not like to see images with watermarks, it ruins all my enjoyment of watching a beautiful image. All the rational arguments of the world can not change this, I'm afraid.

Besides, the comparison between image stealing and "doors & windows" is not accurate, at least in my case (and, I believe, for most hobbyists like myself). When someone steals my images they are not actually causing me any harm. I do not really lose anything, I do not get damaged in any way. Image creation is just a hobby for me, I do not make money out of it, nor do I intend to (for professional artists the statements above may not apply, I know that).

So, when someone "steals" my images they are just spreading my work around, which is even good for me because it tells me that my images are good enough to be worth stealing (I only create images for little over one year, so this is even a compliment). Sure I may not get credited for it but that isn't really important for me. I know who did those images and that can never be stolen away from me.

@Rutra;

* "I absolutely do not like to see images with watermarks, it ruins all my enjoyment of watching a beautiful image. All the rational arguments of the world can not change this, I'm afraid."

*Yes, I respect your opinion on this.

A question for you though....how would you feel if you found out that someone who stole your images was making prints and selling them for profit in street markets?

Quote - "how would you feel if you found out that someone who stole your images was making prints and selling them for profit in street markets?"

Well, I guess I would have a mixture of emotions. I guess I would a) feel proud that someone would actually buy my images, b) feel stupid because I didnt have that idea in the first place, c) feel good because I was helping some poor guy to make some money.

Something completely different would be if I found that some rock band, for example, used one of my images as a CD cover without my permission. Then I would try to make some money out of it. :-)

But none of these experiences would make me feel any different towards watermarking. I wouldnt start doing it because, after all, none of these experiences would damage me in a concrete way nor would they decrease the pleasure that I take out of creating images (maybe even the contrary is true).

Gradient,

In years to come, someone will be able to take a picture of your car, put it into a machine and the machine build it, that's not silly, it's becoming fact, day by day.
So, WTH use or logic is there in our current ideas of copyright, in those situations?

I've said this before, but think it through..
Star Trek replicators were sci-fi, so were "communicators"...note today's mobile phones...that's in just 40 years it's went from sci-fi foolish folk scoffed at or thought would take a century or more, to every day fact.

Look at 3d rapid prototyping and printing, and nano-technology.
I can send a 3d model from Rhino, to a company in the USA, or here, and get it turned into a plastic replica.

So, 100, 200 or whatever  years from now, you don't buy goods, you buy "plans". You download 'em, put 'em in your "replicator", and it makes your TV or whatever, cuts out the middle man, all you need to store are raw materials.

If we allow today's insanity (that is, corporations bending the law to make them more profit), what you buy will have a EULA. You won't own anything, you'll just have a EULA allowing you to use their property. You, a Human Being, won't own anything. Corporations will own everything.

That is incredibly dangerous, as well as being stupid as it's contrary to common sense.

Would you copyright the image someone has of your work in their head? Think about that one for a bit...what's a brain? A data storage unit. So, everyone who has seen one of your pics is illegally holding copies of it....

if that's illegal, if that's "sane", I'm the brother of a tailed-ape's father :D

Also, we're all in danger, every day every minute...heart attacks, robbery, meteors...so what? If you live your life in fear, you're dead already. You lost!

Sure, stop folk making money off your hard work is perfectly just, but they do it already ANYWAY, on a massive scale, just go check the scams in government and business, jeesh.

brilliant example of this, in connection with copyright, are some of the record companies, the prices they charged for CDs, and the amount they actually paid artists, and refusing to invest in the business while giving themselves massive perks and lifestyles high on the hog...yet dare to complain about lost revenue, take folk to court for MP3 file sharing, as their business nose dives because the market has changed and they alienate their own customers etc, haha...classic hypocrisy and "cutting your own nose off to spite your face".

Enjoying art is much more profitable, than worrying about some thieving scumbags who haven't actually broken into your house or harmed your family: THAT'S a totally different scenario and one worth getting upset about. 

Enjoy life! You've only got one shot at it, best make the most of it. It's not what OTHER folk do, it's what YOU do with it, that's important.
Hm? :)

Rutra - I was about to reply in a similar fashion.

You just can't post a picture on the internet and expect total control over it. You can safely assume that, whatever you post online can someday be copied and used without your consent.

I have embraced that and placed all my work so far online with a Creative Commons license. My images are free to use by anyone as long as they don't do commercial work with them and respect credits about their origin. That's the theory.

In practice, I know full well that people can sell my images (good luck for that with the quality I posted them in). I know they can use them and claim they are the owners (if it comes to a verification, I have the 'sources' of these images... I know they don't).

At the same time, I had people as for permission to use some of these images. I even found some used without my permission and complying with the terms of my CC license. That was a good feeling to find they were useful to someone.

I know I can afford this attitude - I am not trying to make a living out of my images. If I do someday, I will make sure to only post online small reproductions or just not post commercial work at all.

If they aren't online then they can't be stolen.  Nothing commercial of mine ever sees a website.  The closest it gets is an SFTP server if the customer is unwilling to pay postage for the CD/DVD

@silverblade33;

Your post raises some interesting points as to where things will end up in the future...and you are very likely correct in the thought that the way we think of copyrights today, will not be that way in years to come.  It is a quickly changing world...of that there is no argument.

What I can say though is...that it is very unlikely that I will be around in the "100 or 200 years" from now...so....I can only live in the current timeframe....and with it, current copyright concerns.

Perhaps my posts are jaded...if they are, it is for good reason....because I have had my entire Terragen gallery "lifted" from Renderosity to find it re-posted on another artsite. Further I have had numerous of my Photos and Terragen works "borrowed" for someone else's gain.

This thread shows the diversity of thoughts on this subject...some folks don't care if their work is ripped....some folks are happy their work gets ripped....some folks don't even know they've been ripped...some folks are upset their works have been ripped...some folks are changing upload habits because of being ripped....and yet others will NOT post anything worthy of being "commercial".

The last segment should be perhaps the most upsetting....not only for those of us who enjoy art, but also for Renderosity....that is the people who have decided not to post their high quality works for fear of them being ripped.  I fully understand that attitude...and sympathize with those...but if everyone took that approach, ultimately the quality of work posted will suffer....and for that we are all poorer.

I don't as you say, spend a lot of time "worrying about some thieving scumbags"....but I would love to be able to view/enjoy someone's BEST work with a watermark.....rather than never having had an opportunity to see that work in the first place because the artist is afraid to post it .

In closing, as you said, yes...we are always in danger...do we all  live in fear...NO.  But we can do things to mitigate those dangers in our lives.
Similarly there are things that artists (and sites) can do to mitigate theft....surely you can not deny those opportunities to those that wish to do so.

Gradient,
no worries mate! :)

I'm just tgetting very worried about some of the really horrible, dangerous stuff I'm seeing corporates pull at the moment, like in the pharmaceutical area, not a topic for Rosity, but comes under the umbrella of peoples' rights being stolen or lives endagered by those who're so powerful, they are skewing our entire societies :/

Lot of spammers and art theft & other online crap rely on certain countries with no care about common sense laws, mostly Russia, China and ex-USSR.  Changing their attitudes' fairly, but without letting corporates become dangerous despots...meh, tricky, but is very needed, as real gangsterism is deadly dangerous.

be a very sad world if artists are too afraid to post their work for fear of theft :(

On a sillier side, I did find one of my freebie models on a site, seemed ot be some kind of college attempt to database online models, not theft IMHO (be nice if they had asked though), just they put it in entirely the wrong category, lol! ;)

Alas, laws today, are the foundations of the laws tomorrow. What may seem ok today, can lead ot a chain of events that are terrible...probably comes from my love of history and living in an older country ;)

Hm, the UK has laws for clubs, pubs, entertainment venues to play music and this is collected to pay artists (I forget the exact name of it, and dont' know how good it is TO artists in reality, iirc it's something like £500/year for a venue?). However, I think that is a valid model to consider in the future. If peopel spend their lives creating art, that enriches society, why shouldn't they be rewarded for it?

Makes much more sense than letting MPs vote themselves pay rises etc, lol.

The problem with systems collecting money for artists is that they risk ending up being as bureaucratic, greedy and corrupted as any corporation - see RIAA and the likes.

They may have started with the best interests in mind - once you reach a certain sum of money to manage, paying the artists become secondary.

I prefer relying on systems encouraging direct payment to the artists - Paypal, donnations, micropayments... we are just at the beginning of these structures which are scaring the older, established structures centralizing payment.

The real risk is that they will do whatever it takes to prevent this kind of system from happening.

There are several systems in the UK - the first one is operated by libraries and pays money from the pot it collects to authors.  Its been running since the 1850s* so it's got quite a good track record.  As far as I know it is pretty efficient in terms of cost to money raised.  The amount a single author can receive is capped and has a minimum amount too.  Even if you get the maximum it alone would barely provide a basic income.

• Subject to my memory being OK.