Tomopop is using DD pictures - and making money off our work

Hey everyone, I'm just trying to bring this to the attention of all the doll communities are participate in. I've posted it on flickr and DOA as well. I don't like seeing other people's photography be used without their knowing, ESPECIALLY when a site makes money off it just from getting the views like Tomopop does. If any of the photos are yours or are the photos of any of our friends, please make them aware!

 

Toy site Tomopop has been using pictures from several BJD communities/sites without citing everyone (some appear to be cited while others aren't - but I highly doubt they asked permission before posting these photos)

 

Just so everyone knows: THIS SITE PROFITS OFF YOUR WORKS.

 

http://tomopop.com/what-dolls-are-up-to-let-s-play-outside--18693.phtml

http://tomopop.com/what-dolls-are-up-to-hanging-out-at-doll-show-30-winter-17063.phtml

http://tomopop.com/what-dolls-are-up-to-let-s-cosplay--16805.phtml

http://tomopop.com/what-dolls-are-up-to-it-s-chilly-out-there--16471.phtml

http://tomopop.com/what-dolls-are-up-to-rockin-around-the-christmas-tree-16166.phtml

http://tomopop.com/what-dolls-are-up-to-i-love-a-man-in-uniform-15874.phtml

http://tomopop.com/what-dolls-are-up-to-sucbleepb-to-the-inevitable-15695.phtml

 

 

I highly recommend emailing their editor colette@tomopop.com and requesting removal or proper citation.

 

Don't let other sites profit off your work without you knowing!

I don't understand... how are they making money off showing pictures?

 

A while back when they first started the column "What Dolls Are Up To" they asked for people to submit photos or links to their photos. In their Christmas column, they used some of my pics that I sent them. They gave me full credit on the front page and even linked to my Flickr page. I was happy that people enjoyed seeing my girls.

 

So I don't see how they are making money off these pics. Can you explain?

 

I do understand if they are grabbing pics and not citing who they belong to or where there came from tho. That's kind of annoying. I did see quite a few girls who are regularly on Figurefm.

 

 

Billy

I don't understand... how are they making money off showing pictures?

 

A while back when they first started the column "What Dolls Are Up To" they asked for people to submit photos or links to their photos. In their Christmas column, they used some of my pics that I sent them. They gave me full credit on the front page and even linked to my Flickr page. I was happy that people enjoyed seeing my girls.

 

So I don't see how they are making money off these pics. Can you explain?

 

I do understand if they are grabbing pics and not citing who they belong to or where there came from tho. That's kind of annoying. I did see quite a few girls who are regularly on Figurefm.

 

 

Billy

 

They make money off their site traffic and through their sponsors. So when they post any news, contests, or galleries like this, it helps them generate revenue. (It's how they pay their staff)

 

I had a feeling you'd emailed yours in since you sometimes comment on Tomopop, but I've seen pictures from friends of mine like copperchef who is not referenced or asked permission. (this is his dollfie Yumi)

 

The tomo staff have not been a particularly nice bunch to the figure community - I know Aka of talgrab.org (formerly omgwebsite.com) and Tier of tentacle armada among others have had their works posted on tomopop without permission. They really do profit from this though, and I don't think people realise. It's the way that Danny Choo makes money from figure.fm the same way - though because it's a community and it's users posting their own content at least it isn't stealing..

I can see why you'd put this up. This is relevant and a good point to make. If you want credit for your work make sure you watermark you images with your name/website.

 

- It might be of particular interest if they are hyperlinking to our images and then overloading servers with traffic.

 

- If people don't want their images reposted.

 

- If they are not giving credit to the owners and the creators of the images- i.e. think professional photographers having their images stolen and reposted on someone else's site.

 

I don't particularly mind too much but it is annoying that they would use your images without asking at all. This is the internet (obviously, right?) and so much image sharing goes around- and many people love sharing the images of their dolls and encourage it!

 

Thank you, Plastic, for making us aware. It's a worthwhile thing to note that when you put your creative work out there someone else may repost it without your knowledge. If you don't mind, great! If you do then take steps to prevent it and protect your work. I think it's better it end up on a site praising your work then say... Encyclopedia Dramatica or something....

 

I hate to bring this up but doesn't someone on here work for Tomopop? I thought it was mentioned in the introductions somewhere? Just sayin'. Maybe they can chime in if they are so inclined?

They make money off their site traffic and through their sponsors. So when they post any news, contests, or galleries like this, it helps them generate revenue. (It's how they pay their staff)

 

I had a feeling you'd emailed yours in since you sometimes comment on Tomopop, but I've seen pictures from friends of mine like copperchef who is not referenced or asked permission. (this is his dollfie Yumi)

 

The tomo staff have not been a particularly nice bunch to the figure community - I know Aka of talgrab.org (formerly omgwebsite.com) and Tier of tentacle armada among others have had their works posted on tomopop without permission. They really do profit from this though, and I don't think people realise. It's the way that Danny Choo makes money from figure.fm the same way - though because it's a community and it's users posting their own content at least it isn't stealing..

 

 

Ah ok. I have no clue how these things work so I had to ask. Thanks for the explanation.

 

Yes, I emailed mine in for one of the first columns and they were nice enuff to "pimp" me out for it. Here's a link in case you didn't see it:

 

http://tomopop.com/what-dolls-are-up-to-rockin-around-the-christmas-tree-16166.phtml

 

I think in the beginning, there was a fair amount of interest in the article and contributing. But as it became less "new", the idea stalled and they began finding their own pics to it.

 

It sucks to hear they are just taking pics without asking, that's pretty rude. Most DD owners would be more than happy to share if asked.

 

Once again, greed rears his ugly head and makes things crummy when they shouldn't be.

 

 

Billy

SirNarwhal and I work at Tomo, though we mostly do reviews and we don't do the gallery posts at all. But, as you can see, everything is linked back to in the newer gallery posts, which is something we both pushed for as before there was very little of that. It all falls under Creative Commons, or so we are told, since they are linked back to. I think they just don't have time to contact every single person, since it's a pretty big gallery post. Actually, the intention of the recent one is to promote doll owner's sites, thus the linking back. There isn't a lot of doll coverage on Tomo, so people thought this would be a better way to get doll people involved, especially since there's the opportunity to get a fair amount of traffic sent to your site through linking back. Again, I'm not actually involved in these gallery posts, but that's my understanding of the situation. They are certainly not stealing pictures, or at least that's not the intention. If you are really so unhappy with having your pictures promoted, you can email one of the editors and ask for them to be removed.

 

I can see why you'd put this up. This is relevant and a good point to make. If you want credit for your work make sure you watermark you images with your name/website.

 

- It might be of particular interest if they are hyperlinking to our images and then overloading servers with traffic.

 

- If people don't want their images reposted.

 

- If they are not giving credit to the owners and the creators of the images- i.e. think professional photographers having their images stolen and reposted on someone else's site.

 

Actually, none of these things are really happening. We're not hyperlinking, because we know that could overload smaller servers, everyone is credited, and if you don't want your pictures on the site simply email the person running it and explain that you don't.

 

I am sorry this is an issue for some, but I can't do anything about it personally. The current person running WDAUT did everything they thought they could to make sure people were getting proper credit, so I have to say that the accusation that Tomo is stealing pictures and profiting off them is kind of off base. This was an attempt to involve the doll community, and to give them a chance for a little promotion.

Creative commons is a license that the content creator may choose to apply to their works. If you use someone else's pictures just providing a link back to the source does not mean creative commons applies. A person who takes a photo automatically has all rights reserved under copyright, unless they specifically choose to waive them or grant licenses to them.

 

I did not follow all the links to the sources of the photos to see if the creators had all stated that their photos could be distributed under one of the creative commons licenses, but I didn't want people to come away with the impression that as long as you link to a source you're protected by such license. That's simply wrong. The creator of the photo must be the one to apply creative commons, not tomopop or any other website.

 

You can read more about creative commons at their website. http://creativecommons.org/

Creative commons is a license that the content creator may choose to apply to their works. If you use someone else's pictures just providing a link back to the source does not mean creative commons applies. A person who takes a photo automatically has all rights reserved under copyright, unless they specifically choose to waive them or grant licenses to them.

 

I did not follow all the links to the sources of the photos to see if the creators had all stated that their photos could be distributed under one of the creative commons licenses, but I didn't want people to come away with the impression that as long as you link to a source you're protected by such license. That's simply wrong. The creator of the photo must be the one to apply creative commons, not tomopop or any other website.

 

You can read more about creative commons at their website. http://creativecommons.org/

 

Ahh, I didn't know that. I was under the impression that as long as things were linked back, it was fine. Toy photographers have always been fine with Tomo using things as long as they were linked back and given credit. Honestly, if it's an issue for you, just ask them not to use your photos if they are put in a gallery. I'm not involved with this part of the site at all, so I really can't do anything about it, but if it really is an issue for people there's a pretty easy way to fix it. Since everyone previously has been okay with just linkbacks provided (the problems PF mentioned with Aka/Tier were fixed as soon as we added linkbacks, at their request), the current person running it really had no reason to think differently.

Ahh, I didn't know that. I was under the impression that as long as things were linked back, it was fine.

 

I was just trying to correct some misinformation.

 

I agree most people who post pictures of toys or dolls on the internet are doing so because they want people to see them. So typically they are fine with people reposting them as long as they receive proper credit, which usually means the creator's name (handle whatever) and a link to where they originally posted them. (Few people are happy when they see their pictures reposted without any credit to them.)

 

But I just didn't want people to think they could go about applying licenses to other people's photos without the creator's consent.

Understood, I am sorry I misused the term. Honestly since I am not involved in this, my knowledge of copyright is pretty thin. ^^; In any case, as you said, most people are fine with Tomo using their pictures with the proper credit. I can assure you that these posts are not meant to be malicious, or to steal content in any way. In fact, we want to send traffic to doll sites and get them more involved. I agree that people have the right to not have their pictures included, but it seems unfair that Tomo is painted as profiting off of people's work as if it's some kind of ploy when it was really an attempt to reach out to the doll community. I understand completely if everyone is upset, and why there was a misunderstanding of intentions, and perhaps it would be best to contact everyone beforehand (though this is not my decision) but from what I have heard that is not entirely feasible and the editors are always willing to remove pictures if people do not want them on the site.

I am not upset with Tomo about using mine at all since *I* gave them permission to. Even if they wanted to use more from me I wouldn't mind at all. As long as they gave me credit like they did last time, I'd be more than happy. I was overjoyed they thought my pics were nice enuff to share on their site the last time. Like Scripple said, most doll owners that post pics online *want* their pics seen in order to share their prize daughters. I know I do.

 

I didn't know about any of the stuff behind the scenes before tho. *If* they were jacking pics then it would be kind of crappy of them, as I said in my last post. But if they are giving credit with links and such then I don't see an issue.

 

I'm glad that there are people here from that site tho. I enjoy going there and seeing new stuff. And when they started doing doll coverage it made me even happier. Hopefully things will be alright from here on out, I enjoy seeing dolls on bigger sites like Tomo.

 

 

Billy

I don't understand... how are they making money off showing pictures?

Through advertisement: If you look at the background image on Tomopop's website, you could see the following phrase: . In most cases, it's safe to assume that Hobbylink Japan paid Tomopop (hereinafter called “Tomo”) a sum of money for Tomo to agree to advertise Hobbylink Japan on the former's website. That's not all, Tomo is also advertising for Capital One and Electronic Arts.

 

This is not an accusation.

 

I will try not to be technical:

 

Pictures, whether Tomo owned them or not, can generate traffic. If users like what they are seeing, they would keep coming back for more, generating even more traffic. Traffic is the amount of "data" sent and received by visitors. It's similar to the exchanging of data between your internet provider and your computer. Traffic is determined by the number of visitors and the number of pages these visitors visit.

 

So, when Tomo is trying to get a potential sponsor, or investor, to "sponsor" their site, Tomo may quote its traffic to seal a deal. When a deal is sealed, the participating sponsors will pay Tomo a sum of money in exchange for the amount of calculated exposure, calculated through traffic, Tomo will generate for the formers' ad(s).

 

Now, this brings up the topic we are discussing - Tomo is using other DD owners' for profits.

 

Before I continue, I will like to say that Alphakitty and SirNarwhal are in no way connected to the following case. The owner(s) of the site called, Tomopop, will be responsible, just like how a commander(s) will take the responsibilities for the misdeeds/good deeds that his/her soldiers have caused.

 

Warning:

If Tomo claimed the traffic generated by other DD owners' pictures as their own without the owners' consent, then this case could turn out to be a legal case. If the following condition is cleared, then Tomo set itself in a position where it can be sued by other parties, such as the owners and their lawyers.

 

If a group of pictures have been generating traffic for awhile and this amount of traffic is more than 25,000 views, etc - then Tomopop, when faced with a legal case, may not be able to settle the case by just taking the pictures off of their servers.

 

If you see your picture(s) on Tomopop, you have the option to send a message to the respected party to inform it of your intention. If your pictures were on Tomopop for awhile now and your pictures have generated quite an amount of traffic that can not be ignored, you could choose to sue Tomopop.

 

I didn't write this post to accuse Tomopop for making money off of others' properties, which wasn't never confirmed... yet. I intended solely to inform the public of the possibilities of past actions. Hope everyone has a good day.

In Tomopop's defense, I think their intentions were more along the lines of "Fair Use". You couldn't have an article about an amazing artist without at least one example of their art. In a journalistic context, that's fair use. Tomopop isn't claiming ownership, they're trying to highlight examples of various artists in a couple articles which are a small percentage of the site's content.

 

On the other hand, as an artist who's had work stolen by big corporations and been told I should 'appreciate the free advertising' meanwhile they profit from my work, I find this type of behavior by Tomopop to be aggravating. I think the ethical action would be for Tomopop to make best effort to contact featured artists and give them a link to the article with their work. Then the artist can have some say in the feature. It could also be a good way for them to cultivate relationships with artists and get the images they need without aggravating anybody.

SirNarwhal and I work at Tomo, though we mostly do reviews and we don't do the gallery posts at all.

 

Right on, thanks for answering. I couldn't remember who it was! ^^

 

I can see why you'd put this up. This is relevant and a good point to make. If you want credit for your work make sure you watermark you images with your name/website.

 

- It might be of particular interest if they are hyperlinking to our images and then overloading servers with traffic.

 

- If people don't want their images reposted.

 

- If they are not giving credit to the owners and the creators of the images- i.e. think professional photographers having their images stolen and reposted on someone else's site.

Actually, none of these things are really happening. We're not hyperlinking, because we know that could overload smaller servers, everyone is credited, and if you don't want your pictures on the site simply email the person running it and explain that you don't.

 

I am sorry this is an issue for some, but I can't do anything about it personally. The current person running WDAUT did everything they thought they could to make sure people were getting proper credit, so I have to say that the accusation that Tomo is stealing pictures and profiting off them is kind of off base. This was an attempt to involve the doll community, and to give them a chance for a little promotion.

 

I'm jumping back in because you quoted me and I really want to be clear...

 

It really wasn't an accusation of any sort- promise. I don't know how you guys run your site since I don't really use it and I've never been to it. I was speaking in generalizations about the nature of the internet and no offense was intended. When I was an editor at a mainstream gaming website/magazine we had to go through a lot of authorization to use certain content but we had a whole legal team to deal with creative issues and draw up specific contracts for the use of "user" content (writing, images, etc) that they would sign whether we requested the use or it was submitted of their own volition.

 

Anyhow, it sounds like it is getting resolved and the editors should be totally happy to comply with folks wishes. Thanks for responding, AK. Obviously there's nothing malicious going on and I look forward to visiting your site sometime.^^

In Tomopop's defense, I think their intentions were more along the lines of "Fair Use". You couldn't have an article about an amazing artist without at least one example of their art. In a journalistic context, that's fair use. Tomopop isn't claiming ownership, they're trying to highlight examples of various artists in a couple articles which are a small percentage of the site's content.

 

On the other hand, as an artist who's had work stolen by big corporations and been told I should 'appreciate the free advertising' meanwhile they profit from my work, I find this type of behavior by Tomopop to be aggravating. I think the ethical action would be for Tomopop to make best effort to contact featured artists and give them a link to the article with their work. Then the artist can have some say in the feature. It could also be a good way for them to cultivate relationships with artists and get the images they need without aggravating anybody.

The artists don't have some say. They actually have all the say. Besides, the pictures are the artists' work, not Tomopop's. If the artists donated or sold their pictures to Tomopop, then that's a different story.

 

I stand by what I have said. I do agree that good things could come from Tomopop's actions, but the way the respected party went about it is very controversial. I don't see why Tomopop opened itself to the possibilities of lawsuit like that. Maybe it's greed, like Baldylox mentioned?

 

Tomopop claimed ownership regardless of its intention (good or bad): If an appropriate amount of traffic was generated from the pictures that Tomopop took (without asking for the owner's consent) or stole (controversial), and Tomopop used this traffic data in their business deals to advertise for other companies, then Tomopop is indirectly "claiming" ownership of the pictures. End result: Tomo earned money for someone else's works, which brings us back to the beginning of the topic.

 

The previous hereinafter doesn't apply.

 

I praise you for coming to the defense of Tomopop, jadepixel. I think this discussion that we are having should be looked into more.

If you guys would like, I can talk to the people in charge of this feature and let them know that the community has expressed an interest in being contacted before their pictures are used. I know they are attempting to make a flickr group where people can submit directly for WDAUT so that this doesn't occur, so it is something they are conscious of. Hopefully that will become active and all of the pictures will be submissions, but until then I don't think it would be too big of an issue to just shoot off some emails.

 

 

It really wasn't an accusation of any sort- promise. I don't know how you guys run your site since I don't really use it and I've never been to it. I was speaking in generalizations about the nature of the internet and no offense was intended. When I was an editor at a mainstream gaming website/magazine we had to go through a lot of authorization to use certain content but we had a whole legal team to deal with creative issues and draw up specific contracts for the use of "user" content (writing, images, etc) that they would sign whether we requested the use or it was submitted of their own volition.

 

Anyhow, it sounds like it is getting resolved and the editors should be totally happy to comply with folks wishes. Thanks for responding, AK. Obviously there's nothing malicious going on and I look forward to visiting your site sometime.^^

 

Oh, I never meant to seem like I thought you were accusing me! Sorry about that. ^^; You just framed some of the issues very clearly, and I thought it would be good to explain to everyone that Tomo isn't intentionally trying to profit off of stolen pictures.

I know they are attempting to make a flickr group where people can submit directly for WDAUT so that this doesn't occur, so it is something they are conscious of. Hopefully that will become active and all of the pictures will be submissions, but until then I don't think it would be too big of an issue to just shoot off some emails.

 

Ah, now that is a great idea! As long as they post about that on their site and make it known, I can't see why they would ever be short on images. Flickr makes it easy to share *if you want to* so that's a good step in the rigth direction for Tomo.

 

Thanks for letting us know about that! I'd be interested in sharing when they get that up and running.

 

 

Billy

I'm glad that I started this thread, at first I was worried because people may have assumed I was just trying to rock the boat.

 

Personally I think a flickr group is a really REALLY good idea. And I do like the feature I just felt uncomfortable with how it has been done in the past and I really did want to make people more aware of things like this.

 

I had no idea this would yield such an amazing discussion over image rights - Halcyon your posts are beyond insightful into the workings of the interwebs and our rights as photographers.

 

And I certainly wasn't pointing any fingers at AK since I know she doesn't work on this feature.

A flickr group is a great solution!

I know the consumerist.com blog started using one after complaints, and it's gone very well for them. They now do a weekly feature to promote the group and show off awesome entries. For really unique individuals without Flickr account, you could still contact the artist and do a special feature.

I would totally submit pictures to a Tomopop group.... if I ever had any ones that were good enough! lol i can always try.

 

^____^

I would totally submit pictures to a Tomopop group.... if I ever had any ones that were good enough! lol i can always try.

 

^____^

 

 

Well, *I* didn't think mine were worth posting up either but it seems I was wrong. It's nice when people NOT in the Dollfie world like your pics.

 

 

Billy