Possible photo theft

[+QuarrellaDeVil]

A waymark was cleared today in the Abandoned Cemeteries category. Two of the photos in the submission look awfully familiar to me, as they're two of the same group that I took myself and then used when I submitted the same cemetery into the Worldwide Cemeteries category some time ago.

 

How do I handle this here, please?

 

Addendum:

 

Compare:

 

QDV:

 

http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMN0YG_Eason_Gray_Cemetery_Shady_Shores_TX

 

TerraViators

http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMQY5B_Historical_1874_Eason_Gray_Cemetery_Shady_Shores_TX

 

[but the map shows it's in China.]

Edited April 14, 2016 by QuarrellaDeVil

[+T.D.M.22]

A lawyer? Speaking on a photographers point of view, unless you can somehow prove its your picture (watermarks or exit data) I don't think there's much you can do....anyway it's not like the person is making money or anything from it so I wouldn't worry too much...

[+Manville Possum]

I found some of my work from here on the Find A Grave site. Not a problem, I'm glad they liked it enough to use it.

[+elyob]

I'm confused. Are the aforementioned photos gone? I see green grass in his photos and brown grass in yours.

[+cerberus1]

I found some of my work from here on the Find A Grave site. Not a problem, I'm glad they liked it enough to use it.

Yeah, we used to see a few copies when we still had locationless (similar).

Maybe figure no one'll notice.

 

I must be not getting it though, as the two examples here don't look alike to me.

[+QuarrellaDeVil]

I'm confused. Are the aforementioned photos gone? I see green grass in his photos and brown grass in yours.

 

QDV:

 

http://www.Waymarking.com/gallery/image.aspx?f=1&guid=344a5a21-f6d4-42c0-acc3-3adf7f041a22

 

TA:

 

http://www.Waymarking.com/gallery/image.aspx?f=1&guid=3db29c43-e835-4083-b3a6-101a56f00386

 

QDV:

 

http://www.Waymarking.com/gallery/image.aspx?f=1&guid=74ddeb5c-ca68-4e85-a493-0d6d77ba2607

 

TA:

 

http://www.Waymarking.com/gallery/image.aspx?f=1&guid=3d27abe5-2ae9-41d1-89a7-86a318876140

[+elyob]

Aren't those his visit photos to your waymark?

[+QuarrellaDeVil]

Aren't those his visit photos to your waymark?

 

Can I say the f-bomb in here? JHC, it's been a long --- day, and I haven't even had a beer yet. Laugh it up, gang, I deserve it. Delete the thread when you're done with it.

[+Manville Possum]

Aren't those his visit photos to your waymark?

 

Can I say the f-bomb in here? JHC, it's been a long --- day, and I haven't even had a beer yet. Laugh it up, gang, I deserve it. Delete the thread when you're done with it.

 

I've been following another thread in the geocaching forum posted by a man in Texas, please tell me that you did not use 911 to report this theft of your photos.

[+QuarrellaDeVil]

I've been following another thread in the geocaching forum posted by a man in Texas, please tell me that you did not use 911 to report this theft of your photos.

 

Rest assured, no. My annoyance, ill-founded, was "It's OK to use someone else's photos to create your waymark?" Of course, it's OK to use one's -own- photos for one's own waymark.

[+TerraViators]

I'm confused. I did not steal a photo. I personally took these photos in June 2010 and can provide the exif data. The angles of the cemetery signs are even different.

[+TerraViators]

I can suggest a way to handle it. Just ask me.

[+QuarrellaDeVil]

I'm confused. I did not steal a photo. I personally took these photos in June 2010 and can provide the exif data. The angles of the cemetery signs are even different.

 

You are right, I am wrong, and I apologize for my haste.

[+TerraViators]

Apology accepted. We're good. I've enjoyed your waymarks as I work in Fort Worth and live in Denton so I'm able to cover a good distance.

[+lumbricus]

[+T0SHEA]

Andreas - I absolutely fell on the floor LOLing when I saw your reaction to this thread!! That's a GREAT ONE!!!

 

An aside, but a little more germane to the topic:

 

Does anyone here use EXIF Viewer for Chrome? There are actually two extensions named EXIF Viewer, a good one and a crappy one. The good one is the one with the square orange icon with the word EXIF inside in white letters. With it, one need only hover over a photo of sufficient size (and that size is adjustable) and a header containing EXIF info and GPS info appears over the photo. As reviewers we use it a lot to see who is stealing photos from whom. It's a truly handy Waymarking extension, available at the Chrome app store.

[+T0SHEA]

OOPS

Edited April 15, 2016 by BK-Hunters

[+MountainWoods]

I use it. Not OOPS, but the EXIF viewer that is.

[+T0SHEA]

I use it. Not OOPS, but the EXIF viewer that is.

 

Yeah, we quit using OOPS months ago - too complex and poorly coded...

[+fi67]

Today, I experienced a great example of photo theft, that made me laugh out loud.

 

I noticed a new waymark in my wider home zone in a category that I don't care much, but I had posted this location to several other categories before, so I thought I could use one of my pictures to log a visit.

 

I didn't remember exactly when I was there, so I figured it was easier to download a picture from one of my waymarks and upload to the new one. But then something seemed strange to me. My picture was from the same angle as the default picture of this waymark, but it was more. It was even the same car stopping at the red light in the foreground. It was the same picture.

 

I know this waymarker as a very experienced and responsible player. I have visited some of his waymark in that area and he has visited some of mine, and I have reviewed a lot of his submissions as an officer. So I knew that this could not be a case of intentional cheating. Above all, he had uploaded a picture to one of my waymarks at the location in question that was much better than mine.

 

So I took HIS picture as a proof of my visit. Now the waymark has a visit and pictures by the poster and the visitor, and everything is fine. But it really made me laugh.

 

BTW: This does not mean, that I support or even accept the use of someone else's pictures in general.

 

BTW2: I have asked his permission to share this story and he's fine with it.

[+pseudoprime]

I can't remember how I noticed it, but the Washington Post published a blog about a Zippy the Pinhead location that lifted a picture from the waymark. I contacted the original uploader, he commented on the Post web site, and they replaced the photo with a link to the waymark.

 

(Looking back, I see that it was an independent donut shop waymark; neither the original uploader nor I thought to create it as a Zippy the Pinhead waymark, though someone else later did.)