Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I was doing a google image search for some 40k related stuff and found an image I had in my gallery here on a blog. I have no affiliation with said blog and the image was uncredited.

Is this a regular thing that happens?

Is there any settings I can change to prevent external linking?

I don't think there are any settings on dakka that could stop them from from just grabbing the image and using it.
You could however watermark your photo's in the future.

You could always leave a comment on the blog telling the person that you did not give permission to use the image and that you would like it removed.

 darefsky wrote:


You could always leave a comment on the blog telling the person that you did not give permission to use the image and that you would like it removed.

You could do that. If you wanted to be more aggressive, you could send a DMCA takedown notice to wherever his blog is hosted, e.g. if it is a Google blog, send it to Google.

You could simply request attribution, which is very reasonable.

You could also just be happy that someone is enjoying your photo/miniatures and let it go. That is the best option, in my opinion. It is the best option for your peace of mind. It is the best option for your emotional well-being.

I know it can feel crappy to see someone using 'your' artwork without permission, but the reality is that you shared it on a public forum because you wanted people to see it and appreciate it, right? Well, someone appreciated it enough that they reposted it on their blog. Is it wrong? Sure. Should the blogger have asked your permission first? Absolutely. Is it easy to do that when you are trying to get a blog post published? No.

weeble1000 wrote:

You could also just be happy that someone is enjoying your photo/miniatures and let it go. That is the best option, in my opinion. It is the best option for your peace of mind. It is the best option for your emotional well-being.

I know it can feel crappy to see someone using 'your' artwork without permission, but the reality is that you shared it on a public forum because you wanted people to see it and appreciate it, right? Well, someone appreciated it enough that they reposted it on their blog.

No, not really. You might not be a pro artist making money off the thing, and they might not be a commercial enterprise making money off your thing, but that doesn't mean it's a free-for-all or not a bad precedent to set. Get an attribution, at least.

Yes, yes really. I advise litigants for a living. And note that I provided a link to a template DMCA notification as well as providing my candid, experienced-based, and well-informed opinion about the matter.

If you want to run through your life with a bug up your about every little thing, you can name your ulcer after me. As someone who has done extensive pro-bono work with the ACLU, Innocence Project, and organizations that provide free legal services to artists, I do not treat infringements of anyone's rights lightly.

So believe me when I say, the best course of action here is to forget about it, move on, and be happy. If the OP is a working professional whose photos are important to a livelihood, DMCA makes more sense. If the OP is a contract painter, requesting attribution and a link to the OP's website makes sense. If the OP is a hobbyist who posted a cool photo of his/her miniatures, the best course of action is to accept the flattery, treat it as a positive experience, and move on.

I would just complain to the blogger or site admin or whatever. I don't think it's worth chasing beyond that, but I definitely think it's ok to let people know that it's not ok to take other peoples' pictures without permission.

You could just accept it and forget about it, but I think of it like teaching a man to fish... teach a man to not take other peoples' pictures without asking and hopefully he'll remember to not do it next time

Even if you aren't a professional artist or whatever I still think it's worth at the very least letting the site admin know that it's not okay for the sake of people who are professional artists to try and combat this culture of just taking stuff off other sites to save yourself from doing the work yourself.

 Mecha_buddha wrote:
I was doing a google image search for some 40k related stuff and found an image I had in my gallery here on a blog. I have no affiliation with said blog and the image was uncredited.

Is this a regular thing that happens?

Is there any settings I can change to prevent external linking?

Hi i'm the gallery mod and I've been doing it for a few years now, this is the first time I've seen this issue brought up.

As others have said the best thing to do is contact the site and ask for credit and maybe a link. I know when I've done articles I try to ask the original artist before using their stuff. If this is a problem and you see your work being used elsewhere you might want to add a watermark wtih your name/handle and site on it to photos you post.

If they're not responsive then you can consider whether to take other steps or let it go.

While there are measures websites can take to make it harder to link or download images, Dakka does not have them in place, and again there's been no real groundswell of demand. I know I've downloaded many an image to my inspiration folders and I think a lot of posters would be turned off if we became more restrictive.

Dakka should be able to add a dynamic water mark to the image. You could add a static one as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vermis wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

You could also just be happy that someone is enjoying your photo/miniatures and let it go. That is the best option, in my opinion. It is the best option for your peace of mind. It is the best option for your emotional well-being.

I know it can feel crappy to see someone using 'your' artwork without permission, but the reality is that you shared it on a public forum because you wanted people to see it and appreciate it, right? Well, someone appreciated it enough that they reposted it on their blog.

No, not really. You might not be a pro artist making money off the thing, and they might not be a commercial enterprise making money off your thing, but that doesn't mean it's a free-for-all or not a bad precedent to set. Get an attribution, at least.

I appreciate the position - even had companies steal bits and pieces of my stuff as well (mostly programming, some other stuff). Get's pretty rough when that happens...but...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

weeble1000 wrote:

 darefsky wrote:


You could always leave a comment on the blog telling the person that you did not give permission to use the image and that you would like it removed.

You could do that. If you wanted to be more aggressive, you could send a DMCA takedown notice to wherever his blog is hosted, e.g. if it is a Google blog, send it to Google.

You could simply request attribution, which is very reasonable.

You could also just be happy that someone is enjoying your photo/miniatures and let it go. That is the best option, in my opinion. It is the best option for your peace of mind. It is the best option for your emotional well-being.

I know it can feel crappy to see someone using 'your' artwork without permission, but the reality is that you shared it on a public forum because you wanted people to see it and appreciate it, right? Well, someone appreciated it enough that they reposted it on their blog. Is it wrong? Sure. Should the blogger have asked your permission first? Absolutely. Is it easy to do that when you are trying to get a blog post published? No.

...I still tend to fall in this camp. With the exception of a breach of contract (written or otherwise), I tend to look at piracy as a sign that you made it big. Whether it is little piracy, like an unattributed image or big piracy, like something being taken, repackaged and sold again by another company. First time I saw it happen with my own software, I got a bit ticked - then realized, heck...this is good enough to steal. Looked at my bank account, all the money was still there, figured the time and effort spent chasing after it would probably not enhance the balance, but if anything shrink it (possibly quite significantly). Called it a day, and went ahead to think of the next thing I could make good enough for someone to steal.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
Dakka should be able to add a dynamic water mark to the image. You could add a static one as well.

Except Dakka does not claim the copyright to images posted.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
Dakka should be able to add a dynamic water mark to the image. You could add a static one as well.

Except Dakka does not claim the copyright to images posted.

Doesn't have to be a watermark claim - just a:

"Image Hosted at DakkaDakka.com in Mecha_buddha's gallery"

Small and only placed with hot-linked images. Adds a bit of CPU time (depending on how many hotlinked images...it can add up) but the original remains untouched, no claims of ownership are made.

That would be above my paygrade but drop a line to Legoburner.

Personally I don't think it's enough of a problem to be required but he has the real visibility on these things.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
While there are measures websites can take to make it harder to link or download images, Dakka does not have them in place, and again there's been no real groundswell of demand.

Those sorts of restrictions would also stop people from using their own gallery pics elsewhere, which is something that Lego specifically wanted to allow with the Dakka Gallery.


People using uncredited images isn't just a Dakka Gallery thing... it's an internet thing. An awful lot of people just don't realise it's even an issue... It's on the internet, so it must be up for grabs, no?

In most cases, just sending them a polite message asking them to properly credit the image or take it down is sufficient.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
That would be above my paygrade but drop a line to Legoburner.

Personally I don't think it's enough of a problem to be required but he has the real visibility on these things.

Not my fight, just an option to deal with the issue at hand. You see the same thing with Reaper's images. On their site - no water mark. If you hot link, the server adds the water mark.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
Not my fight, just an option to deal with the issue at hand. You see the same thing with Reaper's images. On their site - no water mark. If you hot link, the server adds the water mark.

The main issue with something like that is that it is easy to work around so it creates pointless CPU usage. It is nice if have people hotlinking images, since it shows where it originated. However this only works if someone was hot-linking or viewing the image from the URL. If someone simply right clicks the image, saves it and then upload to their blog there would be no water mark. There are methods to add a watermark when someone right clicks it to save, but there are also ways to avoid that since most methods involve scripting that can be 6disabled by the browser.

 Dark Severance wrote:

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
Not my fight, just an option to deal with the issue at hand. You see the same thing with Reaper's images. On their site - no water mark. If you hot link, the server adds the water mark.

The main issue with something like that is that it is easy to work around so it creates pointless CPU usage. It is nice if have people hotlinking images, since it shows where it originated. However this only works if someone was hot-linking or viewing the image from the URL. If someone simply right clicks the image, saves it and then upload to their blog there would be no water mark. There are methods to add a watermark when someone right clicks it to save, but there are also ways to avoid that since most methods involve scripting that can be 6disabled by the browser.

If they are doing that - you are trying to fight a loosing battle. They can easily enough, crop images - use clone tools to remove water marks. Flip, mirror or otherwise rearrange to image to fool simple image recognition software...

Best option is to just let it go and take solace in the knowledge that your stuff is good enough to steal (unless of course the image in question was used as an example of what not to do...).

I'd contact them and ask for credit.

If they refused, or failed to respond.

Step 1.) Copy image to hard drive
Step 2.) Add Water Mark
Step 3.) Delete Orignal from Dakka Dakka
Step 4.) Re-Upload image with watermark

The link the original will be broken and if they come looking for it again the new version has the watermark.

weeble1000 wrote:
Yes, yes really. I advise litigants for a living. And note that I provided a link to a template DMCA notification as well as providing my candid, experienced-based, and well-informed opinion about the matter.

If you want to run through your life with a bug up your about every little thing, you can name your ulcer after me. As someone who has done extensive pro-bono work with the ACLU, Innocence Project, and organizations that provide free legal services to artists, I do not treat infringements of anyone's rights lightly.

So believe me when I say, the best course of action here is to forget about it, move on, and be happy. If the OP is a working professional whose photos are important to a livelihood, DMCA makes more sense. If the OP is a contract painter, requesting attribution and a link to the OP's website makes sense. If the OP is a hobbyist who posted a cool photo of his/her miniatures, the best course of action is to accept the flattery, treat it as a positive experience, and move on.

I've had the same situation (picture hosted on Dakka, posted on a blog) and I did actually do the DMCA thing just to be a pain in the rear.

Of course it was one of our favorite scammers, so there was that extra satisfaction to have Google remove them from his site.

The process itself was pretty painless, just took a while to go through all the forms. I could see where it becomes a pain in the rear if you were doing it a bunch and hunting down blog after blog. All my photography (Dakka and non-Dakka) is usually posted under the CC-BY-NC-SA format, and I'm pretty loose with that as well. I usually don't look for a "picture by d-usa" and I'm happy as long as the picture is linked back to the gallery. And I think that a blog with ad-support technically violates the 'non-commercial' aspect but I'm still okay with that as well.

In my view (and this is only my viewpoint, although I think it has the benefit of substantive experience), it isn't so much about whether the process itself winds up being painless. It is more about understanding when and how to assert rights in a way that has the most benefits personally and socially.

As I have said many times in the GW v CHS thread, just because you have rights, doesn't mean you have to assert those rights, and it doesn't mean you have to assert those rights in a particular way.

From a macro level perspective, it is sometimes best to just let something go, and I think this situation (given the tiny detail we know about it - we don't even have a link to the offending blog post) is one of those times. Again, I take an individual's rights, and especially intellectual property rights, very seriously.

I think the OP might find that successfully asserting his/her rights in this situation would provide a very hollow satisfaction. It is a negative reaction that produces negative emotions in both the individual asserting the rights and the alleged infringer. You did X, that made me angry, so I did Y. That's a bad way to approach a contentious issue, every time.

Now, there could be positive ways to assert one's rights in this situation, but it would take an investment of time and mental effort to do it properly that it is, in my view, not worth the trouble.

You could draft a nice message thanking the blogger for his/her interest in the picture, make a positive comment on the blog post and the blog, and thank the blogger for his/her contribution to the wargaming community. You could then explain the situation in a neutral tone, e.g. "I noticed that this photograph does not have any attribution or a link back to the source." You could explain your feelings about the situation in 'I statements', conflict resolution style, e.g. "When I saw that there was no attribution, I felt a little upset, and a I felt a little jealous." You could explain that you understand it was not the blogger's intention to do anything that would make you upset, and politely request proper attribution.

You could do that, or you could just fething let it go. 10 to 1, the blogger didn't mean anything by it. It is a mistake that we have all probably made at some point. On a macro level, it is better to have more blog posts about wargaming stuff than to chill the environment by running around policing every use of a photo in a blog post.

Mine was Mandlebonder using my photographs to promote one of his scams. Nipping that in the rear and pissing him off by having Google take the pictures down was very satisfactory .

But yeah, 95% of the times it wouldn't be a situation like that and I totally get your point.

weeble1000 wrote:
Yes, yes really. I advise litigants for a living. And note that I provided a link to a template DMCA notification as well as providing my candid, experienced-based, and well-informed opinion about the matter.

If you want to run through your life with a bug up your about every little thing, you can name your ulcer after me. As someone who has done extensive pro-bono work with the ACLU, Innocence Project, and organizations that provide free legal services to artists, I do not treat infringements of anyone's rights lightly.

So believe me when I say, the best course of action here is to forget about it, move on, and be happy. If the OP is a working professional whose photos are important to a livelihood, DMCA makes more sense. If the OP is a contract painter, requesting attribution and a link to the OP's website makes sense. If the OP is a hobbyist who posted a cool photo of his/her miniatures, the best course of action is to accept the flattery, treat it as a positive experience, and move on.

As someone who has worked in the IP legal arena, have an exalt on me. Couldn't have said it better myself.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 adamsouza wrote:
I'd contact them and ask for credit.

If they refused, or failed to respond.

Step 1.) Copy image to hard drive
Step 2.) Add Water Mark
Step 3.) Delete Orignal from Dakka Dakka
Step 4.) Re-Upload image with watermark

The link the original will be broken and if they come looking for it again the new version has the watermark.

Also a good idea if you absolutely just cannot let this go.

Anything more and you are engaging in using a nuclear bomb to kill a fly. Unless you're a commercial artist and / or you think the blog if profiting from use of your picture & (here's the kicker) it's economically viable to prove that, which i can basically guarantee it is not (economically viable that is).

weeble1000 wrote:
You could do that, or you could just fething let it go.

I could say the same about the amount of effort you've put in saying people should just let it go

If it annoyed the OP enough to make a thread about it I don't see the harm in writing the blogger a polite email about it. Hopefully we can actually foster an internet culture that cares enough to ask and credit people before just taking their work.

I'm not saying he should waste time and money getting a lawyer or whatever, but it doesn't seem like much effort to write the blogger an email and even if you decide to do a DMCA complaint that doesn't look like a lot of effort either.

If I noticed someone using an image of mine with neither permission nor credit I'd at the very least write them an email, if nothing else than out of respect for my professional artist friends for whom uncredited stealing of images is an issue. Even if I personally have nothing to gain I don't really see the harm in giving a feth enough to do something about it as long as that something doesn't cost me money and I have a few minutes free time to do it.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
You could do that, or you could just fething let it go.

I could say the same about the amount of effort you've put in saying people should just let it go

If it annoyed the OP enough to make a thread about it I don't see the harm in writing the blogger a polite email about it. Hopefully we can actually foster an internet culture that cares enough to ask and credit people before just taking their work.

I'm not saying he should waste time and money getting a lawyer or whatever, but it doesn't seem like much effort to write the blogger an email and even if you decide to do a DMCA complaint that doesn't look like a lot of effort either.

If I noticed someone using an image of mine with neither permission nor credit I'd at the very least write them an email, if nothing else than out of respect for my professional artist friends for whom uncredited stealing of images is an issue. Even if I personally have nothing to gain I don't really see the harm in giving a feth enough to do something about it as long as that something doesn't cost me money and I have a few minutes free time to do it.

Well, like I said, you can name your ulcer after me.

You go ahead and behave how you please, yet note that not one, not two, but three people with experience in intellectual property and contentious legal issues have expressed substantively the same viewpoint on this matter.

I've seen what happens when folks trundle through life making issues out of things like this, and in the long run it does more harm than good to everyone involved. Standing up for what is 'right' should never trump good, common sense judgement.

Here's a funny story:

So I stopped at the gas station the other day and went into the convenience store to get a few things. There was a line of two people, including myself, at the checkout counter, i.e. myself and one other person in front of me. I am holding a few items and clearly waiting in line. As the gentleman in front of me completes his business, a rather unhappy looking, hard-worn lady walks right up to the counter with a six-pack of baby Bud Lite cans, flagrantly cutting me in line even though the line was as short as a line can be.

I let it go, the clerk let it go, the guy in front of me let it go, and everyone went about their day, having done nothing to acknowledge, let alone redress, this flagrant injustice. Sometimes, you just have to let things pass and extend to others the benefit of the doubt, especially when it comes to contentious legal issues.

Maybe she was in a hurry, maybe she had been having a crappy day, maybe she didn't see me in line, maybe she was taking what little control over her life that she could manage. Who the Hell knows? But the immediate cost to me was having to wait an extra 60 seconds in line, and in the long run I have acquired a humorous anecdote that I have now used as an example to illustrate a point in an internet discussion. So if you think about it, I have actually benefited from the experience.

The story would be much less palatable if I had given this woman a dressing down in a convenience store and saved my 60 seconds, because of the principle. That's a much more negative story. It wouldn't be as pleasant to tell, nor would it be as pleasant to listen to.

Much good comes of letting a little injustice pass.

I'm be happy for someone to use my pictures but would obviously prefer attribution. I'd be upset if someone was passing off my work as their own though.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I'm be happy for someone to use my pictures but would obviously prefer attribution. I'd be upset if someone was passing off my work as their own though.

That is a different type of situation. In that type of situation, you have the added issue of knowing that the alleged infringer is likely acting willfully. But as Sean mentioned, even in situations like that, you might be better off just letting it go.

Another wrinkle that comes with likely willful infringement is that the alleged infringer is far less likely to behave reasonably when confronted.

I'm all for creative commons and sharing ideas and stealing stuff that accumulates in the aether. However, I think the blog should at least give credit where it is due.

weeble1000 wrote:
Well, like I said, you can name your ulcer after me.

You say that yet you are still here posting, why aren't you letting it go?

It's entirely possible to find something irksome, politely seek to correct it and never get stressed or strung out or ulcers.

I think the only time those sorts of things would happen would be when you not only find it irksome but have art as your profession and so you feel valuable recognition and possibly royalties are being lost.

I've seen what happens when folks trundle through life making issues out of things like this, and in the long run it does more harm than good to everyone involved. Standing up for what is 'right' should never trump good, common sense judgement.

If you can be arsed writing an email I'm really not seeing the harm.

Here's a funny story:

Yep, very funny story... but that was just a passing thing. It happened, then it's over. It's not really comparable. If you don't write the email to the blogger, it's there, it will still be there, it will be there until something else happens to take down the site. If you find that irksome, why not write an email?

You story of someone pushing in front, it might have wasted a few seconds of your time and if you don't let it go it will waste more seconds. So it makes sense to let it go because it's just a passing thing, especially since the line was short, if the line was long I'd fully expect the clerk to tell the lady "excuse me the line starts over there, this gentleman/lady was here before you and has been waiting".

A blogger stealing your picture would be more comparable if you got lunch every day at a café, every day there's a line and every day the same person walked in and cut people off.

Well, we are having an interesting, productive discussion, on a forum intended to facilitate interesting, productive discussion. And to address your point about onging impact, I feel that engaging in candid discussions about evaluating the most effective/productive course of action when confronted with a perceived infringement of intellectual property rights is important. I feel that it can have a meaningful long term impact. I think it is a good thing.

I am not attempting to be combative. I am offering my viewpoint on the matter, in a thread which was started by a user requesting the viewpoints of forum members.

You have expressed your viewpoint, which is fair. I have expressed an opposing viewpoint. There is no reason for our dialog to be negative, combative, or stressful. Discussions are not inherently contentious, and I don't feel that there is any reason our present discussion sould be considered contentious.

Do you feel that we are having a combative interaction? It seems that you may have taken my statement that you can name your ulcer after me to have been insulting in some way. Is that correct?

As an update, the original picture was not of an actual model, it was a line art drawing. I have since found the image used 2 other places, one to promote a gamestore event.

I have removed the image from my dakka gallery and sent a message to the blog telling him why his hotlink is now broken.

I could watermark all my images, or simply delete them all.


Best thing to come out of this thread is this post though:

weeble1000 wrote:
you can name your ulcer after me.

That ought to be in your signature, AllSeeingSkink.

Which, by the way, I hope you realize we cannot abbreviate your name meaningfully?

Honestly think some people need something actually important to worry about, Jesus fething wept what a mountain out of a mole hill.

I wondered if the OP was a piss-take, obviously not though!

AllSeeingSkink wrote:


A blogger stealing your picture would be more comparable if you got lunch every day at a café, every day there's a line and every day the same person walked in and cut people off.

I think that's only a worthwhile analogy if the person bumping into the queue is blind, or from northern asia (i.e. they don't realise they have done anything wrong).