thanks, so, I “own” all the pics I take and post… cool… how do I get paid? 
fwiw, OP is in New Zealand… and gave review images to a company in China…
in your opinion, was he injured financially, when they removed his watermark? If so, how does he get paid?
Damm sure sucks when one steals from another. Just for fun, I DuckDuckGo’d “Watermark Removal App” and boy, there’s a ton out there. Damm look at this list! Top Watermark Removal App
Funny thing is Photoshop is first in that list.
Maybe ask them to give you full credit. “Thanks to Jacob Funtastic Studios for the use of his photos”
I find some watermarks Cheezy/Tacky.
It’s not about getting paid, it’s just an identifier.
What was the point in Lexel, and Texas Ace having their branding on their own driver boards in many flashlights? Imagine if manufacturer’s removed it…
Whether he was injured financially depends on whether he normally charges others for use of his photos. However, under the US law and under the international agreements to which many other governments are a party, use of any photo not already placed in the public domain by the copyright holder requires first obtaining explicit permission from the copyright holder. If you don’t do that, you’re violating US law and the international agreements, and you are subject to being sued over such a violation in your own country.
China is bound by international agreements and treaties to enforce the intellectual property rights of persons in other countries. In 1980, China became a member of the World Intellectual Property Organization. China’s intellectual property laws were enacted with reference to the Berne Convention For the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, and also the international Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. Other international agreements in intellectual property rights to which China is a signatory include the Paris Convention, and the Madrid Agreement.
Recent trade agreements between China and the United States began a complex, multi-step process of bringing enforcement actions of US intellectual property rights in China’s courts more in line with such enforcement actions in the US. I don’t know anything about the laws in New Zealand, but I would guess that New Zealand is a party to the international intellectual property agreements signed by China, giving New Zealand copyright holders some legal grounds for enforcing their own country’s copyright protections in China’s court system.
Yeah, I would want credit for the photo, even if I didn’t expect to get paid for the use of the photo. Aside from that being the respectful thing to do, it also serves a practical purpose for the photographer. In the past, I discovered people using my photos without my permission, and without my knowledge. That has led me to conclude that I need to use a “copyright” watermark on any photo I care to protect. If you let some people get away with using your work, others will claim the same right - especially when your photos are available on the web for all to see, wherever and by whomever they are posted.
In addition, I have also come to realize that my work (writings or photos) might be edited and otherwise used in ways that I find objectionable or in poor taste. For that reason, also, I choose now to protect the photos I value.
In addition to adding a watermark to each photo during processing, modern digital cameras also can offer another way to protect your images. The camera I use now for photos I might want to protect has a built-in function in its system with which you can automatically add your own name, as the copyright holder, to the metadata in each image.
they asked, and he provided the images
then they removed his watermark… and used the part of the image they found useful
I see no loss of revenue to the “owner”, so no damages to be recovered…
am I missing something?
I’ve learned a watermark is useless unless its placed in the photo almost dead center.
Some people like to make it appear part of the picture somehow and I like that but I don’t have time for that.
Yes. The intellectual property laws of many countries often provide for statutory damages, even absent any lost profits from the theft of a particular image. In the USA, a successful lawsuit for statutory damages typically results in the award of between $750 and $30,000 per item misappropriated, plus attorney’s fees. In especially severe cases of copyright infringement, such awards can be enlarged up to $150,000. Most photographers don’t bother with such a lawsuit, and even more would send a “cease and desist” letter before thinking about initiating any suit to recover monetary damages.
Statutory damages in these cases can be greatly reduced if the party sued can prove that they were unaware that they were infringing on a copyright. That’s why a watermark, even if not in the center of an image, is often helpful in enhancing protection against theft of photo images. So is embedding copyright information in the metadata of your images. The use of watermarks and other ways of adding copyright data to images has made using this defense to an allegation of image theft very difficult - and it isn’t often successful. In addition, everyone on the planet knows by now that photos are copyrighted, so it isn’t often a plausible defense.
I’ll have to look into this, thank you. That might be all I do, also add the watermark and leave it at that.
I will tell them next time that if you crop out my watermark, to give full credit.
I’m hoping to learn how to use layers and photoshop in the starry sky of a second image. That would make them look really amazing and is why this concerned me for any future reviews
what theft?
he did a review and gave them the photos
they cropped out the interfering watermark
were they supposed to pay a fee (besides the review light), to buy a copy of the image with no watermark?
I live in this part of the world so I could provide you with some insight into why this likely happened.
Good luck in trying to get the message across. If moneys involved then you won’t have any issues.
I did not claim that in this particular case mentioned by the op there was theft of an image. I don’t know the details of his situation, and I don’t know the law in his country, so I have no opinion on that subject, and I’m not going to argue about it.
I just explained why it isn’t necessarily accurate to say there are no damages to be recovered when an image is used without permission from the copyright holder and there was no lost profit. Statutory damages are damages.
I didn’t get much into the difficulties of bringing a copyright infringement suit in various countries because I was trying to avoid subjects that could be deemed a violation of BLF rules.
> and I’m not going to argue about it
I agree
peace out
You may have been considered paid. When you review their product given to you by them and asked for a review with pictures. That can be considered a contract without any actual papers signed. However you may still own you pictures to be used in your portfolio. Their vague “Here’s something you can keep if you review it for us” has holes in it both ways. It doesn’t bar you or them for using the photos either way. This is what you may consider as a portfolio bonus as you have the full uncropped pictures used by companies. So show yours next to what they used along with the company using them listed. Build that portfolio so we can hear you complain later on when you review Land Rover and didn’t get the colour you wanted.
Anyone can sue anyone over anything ...
getting paid is another story .
Ask yourself honestly how much you really care and how much it's worth to you .Chinese vendors have been doing it forever.
Very early on the #8th member of BLF Brted had pics stolen by vendors who were constantly showing pics of his backyard in numerous descriptions of lights . I'm guessing they were used in over 20 or more cases .
If they can't get the description right ,emitter type or output correct then.... maybe it was all just an innocent mistake .
If you provide photos you’ve taken for which you have some kind of personal stake, meaning you intend to make further use of them or you put a significant effort in creating them, then you should initially provide a sample with a large watermark that cannot be removed very easily (e.g. full coverage, low percentage opacity for the layer, perhaps even blurred). The stipulation in providing an image without the watermark would be what you deem reasonable.
You could stipulate a licensing cost or a cited credit for the photo that you insert and mandate that it must remain. There’s also the matter of use online for the product page, or for printed packaging. Of course, you have to be prepared with non-compliance. Do you consider it honor system and hope they comply, prepare a response that implies possible legal action only (no teeth), or prepare to pay for legal retribution?
Another thing you can do is, when removing a watermark, provide a low resolution copy. This way it could be used for web purposes but be unusable for print. This is all in the event of anticipated non-compliance. But if the company has good intentions, they should be grateful for your “donation” and give you some kind of credit. This would seed the opportunity for future reviews. Going against your wishes would ultimately not be in their best interests—no further reviews.
Remember that guy on youtube that built that 100,000 lumen water cooled light? (1000W LED Flashlight - Worlds Brightest (90,000 Lumens) - YouTube) That video got over 7 million views, and the guy has over 300k subscribers. Just about every cheap chinese flashlight seller on Amazon clipped a screenshot off that video like this, and claimed it was their flashlight… lol
Long story short, copyright laws, trademarks, watermarks, etc… mean nothing, and the fact you sent them photos of their light when asked, means they were at least well intentioned. They could have just ripped your picts and ignored you.
Turn it into a positive and ask to send you more free lights to review in trade for more great pictures
As a hobby photographer, I’ve read dozens of copyright infringement cases (that is what this is, regardless of who gave whom, what).
You need to register the images with the copyright office, then send a letter to the mfr for a fee.
Unless you like getting jabbed in the behind… 
We’re talking about China here. They don’t recognize the us copyright law or anything else that involves intellectual property. If large corporations can’t sue them, what makes you think you could, over a photograph?