unauthorised image reuse by demandmedia and livestrong.com

I try to look at the access log for my snowslider and SwissMountainLeader websites from time to time to get an idea of what traffic I’m getting. I always look at the referrer logs, that’s where visitors arrive on the site using links on other websites, to see how much the sites are being talked about.

A couple of weeks ago I noticed visits from a domain called “livestrong.com”, which I’d never heard of, visiting a page on SwissMountainLeader about the flower butterbur. I was curious so I visited the site and found a very lightweight page with a couple of lines of text about butterbur in the context of a herbal remedy and one of my photographs at the bottom of the page. I was pretty unhappy about that,  my photographs are copyright using a Creative Commons license called Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported. That’s a standard license and it means, for example, if you want to link to those images on Facebook to show your friends that’s perfectly fine, but if you’re going to use my images for anything that makes you money or is any kind of commercial activity then that’s not allowed. The difference is about whether the reuse of the images is what we call fair use or not.

As Livestrong.com were using my images in a commercial context then it wasn’t fair use and I don’t really want my material to be used to promote herbal remedies. Companies do this from time to time and I send them a note asking them to pay for the use of my images or remove them, it’s exceptionally rare that those companies don’t correct their error and remove the image.

But Livestrong.com made it clear they’d no intention at all of voluntarily removing the images. Their first response was to refer me to their terms and conditions which required me to make a lengthy formal complaint to their copyright agents (demandmedia). I thought this was outrageous, at no time had I accepted their terms and conditions nor could their unauthorised use of my work be deemed as my acceptance of their terms and conditions. Their later response was so very absurd and unreasonable I’ll just reproduce it here :

We pull our photos from Google images. If you do not want to have your photos indexed by Google, please use the link below to remove yourself from the indexing.

http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=35308

As Google, and other search engines make clear, the fact material is indexed by them doesn’t alter copyright and images in particular may be subject to copyright. I note that Livestrong.com are indexed by Google and make copyright statements on their site, statements that are misleading and incorrect as it’s not their content at all.

Many further requests and complaints to them didn’t elicit any response at all. I’ve never personally encountered an attitude like this to image reuse, livestrong.com and demandmedia seem to acknowledge they were using my material but seem confident there’s little I can do about it and seem to view Google Images as being a library for material to build their websites.

In fact, it transpires that livestrong.com support staff aren’t really on the ball and they’re not using Google Images at all. I looked at their webpage and worked out what they’re doing.

For any given search term, for example “butterbur”, they take the top 5 or 10 images from a search using Bing Image Search, not Google, and just embed the thumbnails from Bing with links back to the sites the images were taken from. Those links are labelled as “nofollow” so they’re not rated by search engines to increase your own site authority. This explains why they didn’t just remove the image when I’d asked which had really puzzled me, I’d assumed it was a static page and even though they’d been using my image that there was some amount or research or original work but it turns out to be nothing more than a automated process.

I’d assumed this was originally some sort of oversight but it now transpires that livestrong.com and demandmedia are engaged in the systematic, large-scale reuse of other peoples images using Bing Image search as an image library to build web pages with practically no original content. All you need to do to be a victim of livestrong.com and demandmedia is have work captioned or titled with a search term they’ve targeted and to have your original work rated as being highly relevant by Bing searches and your images will appear on their website with no benefit to you.

I’m surprised Bing allow this, I’m delighted Bing had placed some of my work at the top of their search listing and I like what they’ve done with the search engine a lot, but if Bing is going to be used for automated, large-scale, systematic image theft then it really undermines their brand.

Comments (6)

6 Responses to “unauthorised image reuse by demandmedia and livestrong.com”

  1. Hi Ise,

    I understand your frustration. Just so you know, ImageRights.com is developing a recovery program that will be unveiled in the next 90 days and will help with issues like this one. I hope you will look further into this when it arrives. If you have any questions in the meantime, feel free to contact me at erin.connolly@imagerights.com.

  2. Davidof says:

    Bastards, let us know what happens. I really hate these bottom feeding image scraping scum… as you well know.

  3. Paul Stradling says:

    Hi Ian,

    I checked out that site and didn’t see your image so I thought that they must have taken it down after all. Now I see they are just scraping Bing, I was just ‘lucky’ that I didn’t see the image. Good luck with getting them to stop this behavior.

    BTW I received some spam apparently from you from a UK Yahoo address. I hope the two events are not connected.

    Keep up the good word on the blog, I often look in envy at your exploits.

    All the best,

    Paul

  4. ise says:

    Yes, they seem to scrape Bing, it’s explicitly a breach of the Bing terms of usage as well as obvious copyright abuse. Due to the automated nature of the abuse they don’t even know on any given day who they’re stealing images from.

    I’ve made a complaint to Bing and I think now that at least one other victim has complained although I’m not sure what route they’re taking. It’s just these people at at a basic level don’t understand that any image they find on the internet just isn’t there for them to reuse.

    My opinion that people who don’t understand intellectual property fail to understand it because they don’t understand the concept of intellect is much reinforced though :-) There’s a common theme with these kind of people; an absence of any sense of right or wrong and they just judge their conduct on whether they’re going to be caught and if they are then what the consequences might be. If they think they’re not going to be caught or nothing bad will happen then they just go right ahead and do what they please.

  5. Davidof says:

    Hi Ian

    Have you heard of Tineye? It is a reverse image search engine

    http://www.tineye.com/

    I havn’t looked at the Tech as to how it works yet, there is a wikipedia page on Tineye though.

  6. ise says:

    That’s new to me, I’d heard of the service that Eric mentioned though.

    Eric’s service looks good, I think they’ve basically got the pricing right but it doesn’t work out well for bloggers, over the years I’ve posted about 3,500 images so using imagerights.com would be $39.95 per month or a first year cost of around $500. So aside from the morals of it you need to recover $500 per annum and I’m not entirely sure I would. I?m not sure how services like that might evolve, a full solution might include identifying image reuse and recovering fees for a cut. An organization like that might have more success in getting fees paid then I might as an individual. Just a thought ….

    The search engine looks interesting, I’ve too many images to run them through manually. I see there’s an api though, I wonder if it’s usable in “Gallery” or not, I’ve just migrated to that (http://swissmountainleader.com/gallery/) and it might work well as a module.